IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8064 of 2010(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- K.U. SREENIVASAN NAIR, S/O.RADHAMMA, PANTHARANGADI (PO), MALAPPURAM (DT) BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TIRUR (PO) MALAPPURAM (DT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TIRUR (PO) , MALAPPURAM (DT). R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 8064 of 2010(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : SALE NOTICE DATED 24.2.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IS PUT FOR SALE ON 21.4.10. EXT.P2 : REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : REPLY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.7.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7-2-2008 IN WP(C0 NO. 4488 OF 2008. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent bank in the year 2002. When the loan was not repaid the bank took steps under sections 19 and 20 of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 to bring the security furnished by the petitioner to sale. Ext.P1 sale proclamation was thereupon issued on 24.2.2010 proposing to sell the security by public auction on 21.4.2010. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 10.3.2010 challenging the sale proclamation. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to relief under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, that he had submitted Ext.P2 representation to the Secretary of the first respondent bank seeking the benefit of the said Scheme, but its benefit has not so far been given to him. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 9.4.2010 after service of notice on the respondents. this Court passed an W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 -:2:- interim order directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before 20.4.2010 as a condition for staying the steps taken by the bank to sell the security. The first respondent thereafter filed a counter affidavit dated 21.3.2011 wherein it is stated that the loan availed by the petitioner was a housing loan and therefore the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 has no application. It is also stated that he had availed yet another loan of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2001 and in respect of that loan, waiver of interest was given in terms of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.4488 of 2008 in this Court when the bank took steps to sell the security by public auction, that the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment delivered on 7.2.2008 with a direction that in the event of the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within one month, the sale will stand deferred and that the petitioner shall discharge the arrears in monthly instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- each payable on the last working day of every month commencing from April, 2008. The counter W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 -:3:- affidavit proceeds to state that the petitioner did not even thereafter deposit any amount and therefore the bank was constrained to issue a fresh sale proclamation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had even earlier on 4.7.2005 filed W.P. (C) No.20006 of 2005 challenging the steps taken by the bank to bring the security to sale. In that case an interim order of stay was passed on 5.7.2005 staying the sale subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month commencing from July 2005. The petitioner has no case that he has complied with the said direction also. 3. It is thus evident from the materials on record that the instant writ petition is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner to interdict the bank from bringing the security to sale. In the first of the writ petitions, W.P.(C)No.20006 of 2005 an interim order was passed on 5.7.2005 by which the petitioner was obliged to discharge the arrears by remitting it in instalments of Rs.40,000/- each per mensem. In view of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditional order of stay passed by this Court the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 -:4:- delivered on 4.1.2007 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the bank and to get the matter settled under the one time settlement scheme, then in force. The petitioner did not avail the said benefit. Instead he filed W.P.(C)No.4488 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.R1(a) judgment with a direction to deposit the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within one month and to pay the balance in monthly instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- each commencing from April, 2008. The petitioner did not even thereafter pay any amount. The bank was therefore constrained to bring the security to sale and that was why Ext.P1 sale notice was issued. In the light of the facts stated above I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner, who had earlier moved this Court and did not comply with the conditions stipulated by this Court, cannot once again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and seek an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments or claim any benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The loan availed by the petitioner was a housing loan. The Agricultural Debt Waiver and W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 -:5:- Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 cannot therefore have any application to the loan availed by the petitioner. In such circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.8064 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 4th August, 2011