IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17930 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY RENJITH, AGED 35 S/O.BHASKARAN, NADUVILPURACKAL HOUSE, S.N.PARK, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK, AYYANTHOLE BRANCH. 2. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ARBITRATOR CUM SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD, SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY PO, THRISSUR-22. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 17930/09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 25-5-2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 13(2) NOTICE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION. EXT.P4 EXECUTION NOTICE. ANNEXURE A1 NOTICE DT. 4-7-2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17930 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and his wife availed a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of overdraft facility from the 1st respondent-bank on the security of 3.5 acres of land belonging to the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner and his wife defaulted repayment of the loan amounts. The bank filed ARC No. 1249/2006 for recovery of the loan amounts. An award was passed on 19-4-2007. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not pay any amount. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition stating that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the arbitrator and when he was made aware of the same, he and his wife filed Ext. P1 application to set aside the ex parte award. However, the bank proceeded with the recovery proceedings by issuing Ext. P4 notice. Ext. P4 notice is challenged by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P4 notice. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent to dispose of Ext. P1 pending to set aside the ex parte award in accordance with law. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for one time settlement or grant 6 months time of payment of true and correct outstanding loan arrears.” 2. The fact that the petitioner and his wife are in default in repayment of loan amounts is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner also does not dispute that more than Rs. 15 lakhs are due from the petitioner by way of repayment. He has no case that he has paid any amount to the bank. The learned counsel for the bank points out that after taking the loan, the petitioner has not paid any amount W.P.C. No. 17930/2009 -: 2 :- whatsoever in repayment. 3. This Court, on 13-10-2009, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs within one month. The petitioner did not pay the same. On 18-11-2009, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount ordered to be paid by order dated 13-10-2009 would be paid by 23-11-2009. The petitioner has not complied with that order also. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner may be given one month's time to pay Rs. 12 lakhs. This is opposed b the counsel for the bank. He submits that the petitioner cannot be believed insofar as he has not kept any of his promises so far. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the bank. Even after the order dated 13-10-2009, he has not cared to pay any amount at least to prove his bona fides. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner's attempt is to protract the repayment as far as possible. By his conduct, the petitioner has rendered himself ineligible for the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am not therefore inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/