IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4087 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIKALADEVI, 44 YEARS W/O. VIJAY GOPAL, SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 'REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE MUMBAI 400 001. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ANGAMALY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. M/S. DUROLAC, 3RD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT,ANGAMALY SOUTH.P.O.,ERNAKULAM 683 573, REPRESENTED BY GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI.V, SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI.V, SAASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. VIJAY GOPAL.G SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. RAJAGOPAL.G SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. GEETHAMANI,G, SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. SUDHAMANI.G. SARASWATHY NILAYAM, DESOM PO, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. By SC SRI SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4087 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is one among the co-obligants for a transaction availed by the fifth respondent from State Bank of Travancore. Respondents 6 to 10 appear to be the other co-obligants. The debtors had moved this court in April 2008, stating that there was a One Time Settlement Scheme and that they were not given sufficient time to pay off the amounts. The bank had taken the stand that the time fixed for enjoying the One Time Settlement Scheme had lapsed. Yet the bank did not seriously oppose granting of some time to the petitioner. It was accordingly that Ext.P3 judgment was issued on 11.4.2008, granting an opportunity to pay off the amounts in instalments. That was not paid. Possession notice has now been issued followed by a notice for sale. Against that notice dated 1.1.2009, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. I am not inclined to consider the other contentions as if now, having regard to the finality of Ext.P3 judgment. The only plea that gains notice is that the petitioner claims that she is an indigent person and cannot pay the huge fee required for an application under Section 17. Admittedly, payment of fee is provided for by the rules. Those rules do not provide any WP(C) 4087 OF 2009 2 exemption. Unlike in certain other statutes relating to court fee, rules governing the field do not provide for waiving or deferring the payment of fee. Once the authority to impose fee is not disputed, the absence of any power to exempt or defer payment of fee does not, by itself, result in any arbitrariness, much less, legislative arbitrariness. The situation is only that there are no provisions to the aid of any indigent. The impugned sale notice is issued against different persons. According to the petitioner, total fee payable is only around Rs.21,000/-. I do not find any ground to issue any directions. Hence writ petition is dismissed, preserving all the rights of the petitioner to move Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/11/2