IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8692 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S. ABOOBACKER, 48/360, 6 SIMI, PRA -7, PARAVANKUNNU, MUTTATHARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 026. BY ADV. MR.C.M.STEPHEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SBI CARDS AND PYAMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DLB INFINITY TOWERS, TOWER - C, 12TH FLOOR, BLOCK II, BUILDING III, DLF CYBER CITY, GURGAON-12202, HARYANA STATE, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3. SBI CARDS AND PYAMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, STATE BANK HOUSE, 11 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI – 110 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY MR. P.V. SURENDRANATH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON 25/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8692 of 2010 -J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has approached this Court mainly seeking to quash the same. 2. Ext.P6 is a letter issued by a lawyer firm to the petitioner as an invitation for conciliation as per the provisions of Section 62 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on instructions from M/s. SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having retail business at Chalai Market in Thiruvananthapuram city. He had availed an SBI card from the first respondent with number 0004317575164208309. There was an SBI account with number 0004317575160156296. It is the case of the petitioner that a claim was raised by the second respondent on 17.8.2007 for settling the arrears in the outstanding payments to SBI card and an amount of Rs.61,850/- was paid by him as per various cheques. Exts.P2 and P3 are produced in support of the above plea. Later, he was issued a notice by the Lok Adalath from the wpc 8692/2010 2 Thiruvananthapuram District Legal Services Authority, as per Ext.P4. It is averred that the Lok Adalath found that no action is necessary as they were convinced of the fact that the dues were already settled and Ext.P5 is the order produced in support of the above plea. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 is issued in support of the unreasonable demands and for compelling him to effect unwarranted payments. It is also mentioned that he is not having any transaction after 17.8.2007. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as Ext.P6 is only a notice issued by a lawyer firm informing about the conciliation process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the said attempt is made to recover amounts from the petitioner and therefore Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. 6. Ext.P6 is only an invitation for conciliation as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, issued under instructions from M/s . S.B.I. Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. It is ununderstandable as to how it could be termed as a process to recover any amount from the petitioner. Therefore, actually there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file this writ petition. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay any further wpc 8692/2010 3 amount, is a matter for adjudication, as the respondents have claimed further amounts, evidently. Even with regard to the claim of the petitioner that the Lok Adalath had finally found in his favour, a reading of Ext.P5 shows that there is no such finding at all. It is mentioned therein that even though the petitioner produced settlement letter and receipts showing that the liability was discharged, it was not being accepted by the respondents, mainly the first respondent herein. Accordingly, the matter was closed as not settled. But still, in para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the Legal Services Authority also got convinced of the fact that the dues, if any, had already settled. It is actually a wrong statement from the part of the petitioner. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution and on that ground also, the writ petition is not maintainable. I need not go into in detail of the above contentions, since the writ petition is otherwise, not maintainable as any dispute between the parties with regard to the money claim cannot be a subject matter of adjudication before this Court, especially since the various facts are disputed. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. wpc 8692/2010 4 Ext.P6 is also not liable to be quashed in a writ petition as it is only a notice issued by a lawyer firm to the petitioner. For all these reasons, the writ petition is not entertainable and hence dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/