IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12781 of 2010(W) -------------------------- CRMP.903/2010 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RICHARD HENRY , AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RICHARD, PEEDIKA, THEKKETHIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA ,KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. R.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO 960 KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 001. 2. SICIN G MUNDAKKAL ADVOCATE,KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MS. D.P.RENU R2 BY ADV. MR. R.RANJITH MR. M.T.SURESHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 12781 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 notice issued by the 1st respondent and all consequent proceedings including Crl. M.P. No. 903/2010 in the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner and his assets. ii. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P6 notice issued by the second respondent. iii. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P9 order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in Crl. M.P. No. 903 of 2010 in the filed of the said court. iv. issue such other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent Bank is not justified in resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act, for realization of the amount stated as due, causing the property belonging to the petitioner to be taken possession of and sold in public auction. 3. A detailed statement has been filed from the part of the Bank showing particulars of the loan and the outstanding arrears, coming to W.P. (C) No. 12781 of 2010 : 2 : a total of nearly Rs.2,49,851/-. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank, with reference to the contents of the said statement submits that a sum of nearly Rs. 27,099/- is 'overdue' as on 31.5.2010 in respect of the defaulted installments and if the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the overdue amount, the loan account of the petitioner can be regularized. 5. The petitioner has also got a case that the petitioner is a 'fisherman' by profession and has availed loan for the construction of his residential building. It is contended that a 'moratorium' has been declared by the Government of Kerala in respect of the loans taken by fishermen and that the same is valid and in existence till the end of August, 2010 and this being the position, the steps now being pursued against the petitioner are not correct or sustainable. 6. The learned standing counsel submits that the aforesaid Scheme is not applicable to the loan transaction in question. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy by approaching the DRT by filing SA 239/2010, which stands posted on 22.6.2010. 7. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that, the W.P. (C) No. 12781 of 2010 : 3 : petitioner is at liberty to have the 'overdue' amount cleared as mentioned by the respondent Bank and to have the loan account regularized or to pursue the alternate remedy by way of SA 239 of 2010, which he has already been preferred before the DRT in respect of the concerned cause of action. The Writ Petition is closed accordingly. . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd