IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33876 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.R.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.LATE RAMAN KUNJU, KUZHIKOMBIL, CHELLAYIL HOUSE, AGED 48 YEARS, THARIYODU NORTH P.O., PADINJARETHARA, VIA. POZHUTHANA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.K.JOSE, SMT.TESSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZD OFFICER HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, 2ND FLOOR, DOOR NO.XL 3597 SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. ANNAMMA T.G., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O K.R. KRISHNANKUTTY, TEACHER, GOVT. LP SCHOOL PADINJARATHARA, PADINJARATHARA PO, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PADINJARATHARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PADINJARATHARA PO, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R1 BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, MR.ADEEP ANWAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33876 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner along with his wife, who has been arrayed as the 3rd respondent, had availed a loan from the 1st respondent, which was not repaid as scheduled. In the said circumstances, the bank proceeded with the steps for realization of the amount due, issuing notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. Since the attempt made by the 1st respondent did not turn to be fruitful, necessary assistance of the statutory authority was sought for and finding that there was no positive sign of help, the 1st respondent was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34952 of 2008 seeking for appropriate reliefs. In the said writ petition, the petitioner herein and his wife (3rd respondent) were arrayed as respondents 6 and 7 and on completion of service, they were being represented by a learned counsel before this W.P.(C) No. 33876/2009 2 Court. After hearing the rival submissions, Ext.R1(a) judgment was passed by this Court directing the District Magistrate to consider the application and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made therein within a specified time. It was, however, stipulated that the enforcement of the order would be kept in abeyance for a period of 45 days from the date of the judgment, to provide a 'last opportunity' to the respondents 6 and 7 therein (petitioner and 3rd respondent) to pay off the entire outstanding dues and avoid physical dispossession. 2. The case of the 1st respondent before this Court is that the due amount was not satisfied by the defaulter within the extended time of 45 days granted by this Court wide Ext.R1(a) judgment. Much after, the petitioner filed Ext.R1(h) application dated 2-3-2009 before the 1st respondent seeking two months' time to satisfy the entire liability. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner did never choose to honour the commitment even W.P.(C) No. 33876/2009 3 within the said period of two months, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the 1st respondent i.e., petitioner in Ext.R1(a) judgment, but to approach the Government and Police authorities for providing necessary assistance to take physical possession of the building. Accordingly, the 4th respondent Village Officer, with the assistance of the Police, took possession of the premises and it was handed over to the 1st respondent on 7-11-2009, as borne by Ext.R1(j). Pursuant to this, the 1st respondent posted a Security Officer in the premises and the building was kept under the lock and key. 3. While so, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, stating that he happened to be dispossessed because of some unforeseen circumstances. This Court by an interim order dated 25-11- 2009 'stayed dispossession' of the petitioner from the property for a period of two weeks, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh within two weeks, which is stated as complied with. Subsequently, after taking W.P.(C) No. 33876/2009 4 note of the rival contentions, the interim order was extended as per order dated 21-12-2009, subject to the condition that the petitioner remitted a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs within three weeks, which stands yet to be complied with. 4. The specific case put forward by the 1st respondent is that there is a conscious attempt on the part of the petitioner to misrepresent the fact and figures, as if the physical possession were yet to be taken over, which led to the interim order. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that, on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 25-11-2009, the petitioner choses to take the law into his hands and the Security Officer deployed by the 1st respondent in the premises was forcefully driven away and physical possession of the building and premises was taken over by the petitioner. The matter was immediately reported to the Police and a Crime was registered against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that no indulgence is warranted in the case, obviously for the reason that the petitioner is not a law-abiding citizen and further W.P.(C) No. 33876/2009 5 when the petitioner has not satisfied the condition imposed by this Court while extending the interim order on 21-12- 2009. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, particularly in view of the sequence of events as discussed with reference to Ext.R1(a) judgment. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. The 1st respondent is free to take back the physical possession of the premises by availing the help of the Police or such other authorities, as the case may be. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn.