IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14337 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- OMANA N.K., AGED 50, W/O. JOSE P.M., NARANGALIL HOUSE, VIYYUR, CHEROOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EAST FORT BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, MAHESWARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 14337 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 18/11/2008. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 15/2/2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 22/12/2010. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 3/9/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14337 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. This court passed two interim orders in this writ petition which read as follows: “SC for respondent seeks time to get instructions. Meanwhile dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P4 notice shall be kept in abeyance, if not already dispossessed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on or before 15.6.11.” 27.5.11. “It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the condition stipulated has not been complied with. It is made clear that the interim order will not be operative if the condition has not been complied with.” 28.6.11. Admittedly the petitioner has not complied with the interim order. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 have to be challenged in an appeal before the DRT. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Court W.P(C) No. 14337 of 2011 -: 2 :- entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the bank for appropriate relief. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/