IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1149 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.UNNIKRISHNAN,AGED 35, S/O.SUKUMARAN UNNI NIVAS, KOLLAMKONAM.VILAPPILSALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.N.B HOUSING FINANCE LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CAPITAL TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (BRANCH MANAGER) P.N.B HOUSING FINANCE LTD,CAPITAL TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. MOHANAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.1149 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 17th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Bank. As can be seen from Ext.P4 letter, six instalments were in default and the petitioner submits that out of this six instalments, substantial amount has been paid. Despite that, Ext.P6 notice was issued informing the petitioner that the Bank had decided to take possession of the property and that if possession of the property is not delivered, possession will be taken over by them forcefully. It is at that stage this writ petition was filed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed where the Bank submits that the property was declared as non-performing asset and that Ext.R1(b) demand notice was issued followed by Ext.R1(c) possession notice. According to the Bank, the total liability of the petitioner is Rs.2,59,509/= as on 31.12.2007. The Bank admits that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation to clear the entire dues, but declined to accept the same in view of the W.P.(C)1149/2008 2 fact that the property was already categorized as Non-performing asset. Even the Bank has not accepted Ext.P3. According to the Bank, it is not possible for upgrading the account even after it was declared as non-performing asset and in terms of the RBI guidelines upgradation is possible. If that be so, the action of the Bank in refusing to accept Ext.P3 cannot be upheld. 3. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of directing that the Bank will consider Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner for allowing the petitioner to clear off the defaulted arrears and regularise the account. 4. Until a decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner, further proceedings against the property of the petitioner will stand deferred. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/