IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34929 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.SURESHBABU,VARMA TRAVELS, FUEL CENTRE,PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,NEDUMANGAD BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,CHIEF MANAGER, (ADVANCES),STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGIONA II, ZONAL OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,8TH FLOOR,K.S.H.B.BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR,ERNAKULAM-36. 4. S.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,RESIDING AT VALIYAVEETTIL VILAKATHU VEEDU(KAIRALI), PUTHIYATHURA,KARIMKULAM,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695 564. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34929 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 and P12 letters of the 1st respondent Bank and the sale of 42.65 cents of property conducted by the 2nd respondent . The petitioner inter alia seeks direction to the 1st respondent Bank to consider the request submitted for 'one time settlement' of the arrears due in the loan accounts. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed another writ petition WP(C).No.19454/2010, as early as in June, 2010. The prayer originally sought for in that writ petition was to consider the request submitted for 'one time settlement'. It was revealed from the averments in that writ petition that, with respect to the sale proposed a notification was published and the petitioner along with his wife had moved securitisation applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as SA.257/10 and 258/2010, and the Tribunal had issued an interim order dated 30.3.2010, directing to defer opening of the tenders till WP(C).36251/2010 2 23.4.2010. Petitioner was directed to make deposit of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 20.4.2010. The said order in IA.Nos.980/2010 and 981/2010 in SA.Nos.257/2010 and 258/2010 were produced as exhibits in that writ petition. It is mentioned therein that, eventhough the Tribunal had extended the time stipulated for payment, the petitioner could not remit the amount in compliance with the condition stipulated. Under such circumstances, all the tenders received were opened on 18.6.2010 and the successful bidder was permitted to make deposit 25% of the bid amount and he was issued with letter requesting to remit the balance amount. In view of such developments the said writ petition was sought to be amended incorporating an additional prayer to quash the sale conducted. 3. In the present writ petition, Ext.P11 letter issued by the Bank is challenged. In Ext.P11 the Bank had intimated the petitioner that the above said property was sold and the purchaser had remitted the entire amounts and further the sale certificate had already been executed in favour of the purchaser. It is further intimated that in view of the sale the loan account was closed. In Ext.P12 the Bank had intimated WP(C).36251/2010 3 that in view of the sale of the property and deposit of the entire amount, the Bank is not at all in a position to consider the proposal for compromise settlement. 4. It is pertinent to note that, in the present writ petition the petitioner had not disclosed anything about the pendency of WP(C).No.19454/2010. From the averments contained in the writ petition it is evident that the petitioner is pretending ignorance about the sale, till he had received Ext.P11. Whereas it is evident that from June 2010 onwards he was fully aware about the proceedings initiated for sale of the property and further he was fully aware about the sale which was conducted and about remittance of the amount and issuance of sale certificate. Further, it is evident from the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, that the petitioner as well as his wife had filed not less than seven writ petitions, one Review petition and a writ appeal before this court, apart from the SAs filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, relating to the very same recovery proceedings. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the filing of the present writ petition suppressing pendency of WP(C). No.19454/2010, through another counsel, can only be WP(C).36251/2010 4 considered as a patent attempt to mislead this court and it amounts to clear abuse of the process of the court by suppressing material facts. The petitioner had filed an affidavit along with the writ petition to the effect that he has not filed any other writ petition for the same reliefs, which amounts to clear purgery and the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against. However, considering the fact that no relief was granted on the basis of the misrepresentation made before this court, I am not giving any particular direction for initiating criminal action for purgery. At the same time I am of the strong view that the petitioner should be mulcted with compensatory cost . 6. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the 1st respondent Bank which shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent before this court. The petitioner shall also make payment of a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The payments as directed above shall be made within two weeks from today. 7. The registry is directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary of the Legal Service Committee. On failure to pay the cost awarded the respondent Bank as well as WP(C).36251/2010 5 the authority concerned will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of the same. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/