IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27463 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S. SABUNATH, S/O. SOMANATH, AGED 36 YEARS, KALATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIPPAI P.O., CHENGALAI, (VIA) SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ABHILASH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. SYNDICATE BANK, SREEKANDAPURAM BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27463 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Complaint of the petitioner is that proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is initiated against the secured assets, which are immovable property mortgaged by him for securing a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank, without issuing notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 had produced copy of the postal acknowledgment for the perusal of this court. Therefore I am satisfied that 13 (2) notice was duly issued and served on the petitioner. 2. Further contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 notice was published and styled as a notice of attachment which is not contemplated under Section 13 (4). Contention W.P.(C)No. 27463 of 2009 -2- of the petitioner is that notice under Section 13 (4) can be issued only to take over possession of the property, and there is no provision for attachment of the property under the SARFAESI Act. 3. If the notice as evidenced by Ext.P3 is issued not in strict compliance with the provisions contained in Section 13 (4) of the Act, the petitioner has got an option either to ignore it and to treat it as a notice having no consequence. On the other hand if any coercive step for eviction is threatened, it is for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 17 of the Act. In such case the petitioner can proceed with as if it is a notice under Section 13 (4). At any rate, in view of the alternate remedy available, it is not proper for this court to interfere with Ext.P3. Hence the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/