IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34015 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- CMP.5447/2011 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA ................................................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- O.B. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, ROSH BHAVAN, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATTANAKKAD BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688531. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE PATTANAKKAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688531. BY ADV. SRI. SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 34015/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/10/2010 ISSUED FROM THE ZONAL OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/07/2O011 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.34015 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank points out that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act, which is pending. He also submits that the stay originally granted has already been vacated. It is submitted that the petitioner has not chosen to mention these facts in this writ petition. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable for more than one reason. First is that after having resorted to the statutory remedy the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition on the same W.P.(C)No.34015 of 2011 -2- subject matter. Further by not mentioning the pendency of the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in this writ petition the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. For both reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/