IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5144 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SOMASUNDHARAN K.K., S/O. K.C. KRISHNAN, KARIPPAI HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. 2. BINDU M.B, W/O. SOMASUNDHARAN, KARIPPAI HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 87, HEAD OFFICE MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR -1. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THR TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 87, PUMKUNNAM BRANCH, THRISSU. BY SC SRI C D DILEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 5144 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT On 24.9.1996, the petitioners availed a loan. That has grown to an accrued outstanding of Rs.3,54,051/- as on 9.9.2008. Ext.P1 notice dated 15.9.2008 was issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act . Petitioners submitted Ext.P2 reply offering to repay the outstandings @ Rs.10,000/- per month. This was not acceptable to the bank and it has issued Ext.P3 reply. There cannot be any judicial review of this, more particularly since there is no legal right for the petitioner for anything more than a consideration of the reply as laid down by Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals V. Union of India(2004(4) SCC 311). On facts also, I do not find any ground disclosing arbitrariness on the part of first respondent, statutory authority. Writ petition is hence dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to proceed the bank for a settlement of the transaction. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/18/2