IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23647 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.J.DEVAKI, 60 YEARS, W/O.C.N.RAJAPPAN, VAISAKH HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANKARA BRANCH, MANKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI - 400001. 4. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 23647 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court, in the course of the 4th or 5th round of litigation, challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, to realize the amount due under a loan transaction. The sequence of events as described in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank is sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the Bank also placing a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) 21199/2008, whereby interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is of course the admitted case of the petitioner, that the said Writ Petition filed earlier was dismissed; but the contention is only that, certified copy of the judgment is still to be obtained and that the petitioner is aggrieved on many a ground. 2. The only improvisation sought to be made in the present Writ Petition is by way of challenge raised against the Rules; particularly Rule 5 and 8(5) and 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had no such case earlier at the time of filing WP(C) 12663/2007, WP(C) 18467/2007, Writ Appeal 1976/2007 and WP(C) 21199/2008 and such case is mooted before this Court for the first time in this Writ Petition, as if it were under some 'revelation' which is not WP(C) No.23647/2008 2 liable to be entertained. It is also not the case of the petitioner, that she had challenged the said rules in the earlier proceedings filed before this Court, but not considered. Even otherwise, she has not taken up the matter in further challenge before the higher Courts if aggrieved. This being the position, this Court finds it very difficult to accept the case as now projected in this Writ Petition challenging the 'Rules', which can only be regarded as an attempt to have the other issues reconsidered and hence not with any merit or bonafides. 3. It is revealed from the judgment dated 25.07.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) 21199/2008 that the petitioner had moved the Tribunal as well as this Court on different occasions, but was not successful in obtaining favourable orders. It is stated that the petitioner obtained same benefits as to the repayments, when she approached this Court earlier in April 2007 by way of WP(C) 12663/2007 and thereafter she filed WP(C) 18406/2007, which was disposed of by the very same learned Judge holding that the issues were already concluded by virtue of the earlier judgment. Being aggrieved by the said verdict, Writ Appeal No. 1976/2007 was filed, where interference was declined. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, without availing the benefit provided under the earlier judgment, chose to approach the DRT by filing the Securitisation Appeal on 31.10.2007. The learned counsel who filed the vakkalath in that case, made an endorsement that the Securitisation appeal could be dismissed, on granting time to effect payment in satisfaction of the WP(C) No.23647/2008 3 entire liability till 20.02.2008; which was recorded and the appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2007. Thereafter I.A.493/2008 was filed before the Tribunal through another lawyer, saying that the contentions were not withdrawn and that the endorsement was made on a wrong impression. Finding that there was absolutely no merit in the said I.A., it was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. Subsequent to the above proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 21199/2008, wherein Ext.P7 I.A. was also filed. The actual position was explained from the part of the respondents by filing Ext.P8 counter affidavit, which led to dismissal of the said Writ Petition, taking note of the entire facts and circumstances above. It was also observed by this Court as per the said judgment dated 25.07.2008 that, if the petitioner was still aggrieved in any manner, she could pursue the alternate remedy by way of appeal as provided under the statute. It is still thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition which does not call for any interference invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc