IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15876 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. C.SEBASTIAN, JOYS, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR PO, KOLLAM 691 572. 2. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KARMALA BHAVAN, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 572. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (REGIONAL MANAGER), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ANANDAVALLEESWARAM, KOLLAM 691 013. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 15876/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/08/2000 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/11/2004 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETIITONER BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE BANK. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/04/2008 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETIITONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/10/2008 IN WPC. NO.15230/2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/01/2010 IN CON.CASE (C) NO.1036/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15876 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- First petitioner availed a cash credit facility from the 1st respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs for the purpose of executing works contracts with the Kerala Water Authority. The 2nd petitioner, who is the father of the 1st petitioner, is the guarantor for the loan transaction. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated at the behest of the respondents, which was challenged by the petitioner before this court on an earlier occasion. In Ext.P5 judgment this court directed the authorities of the Kerala Water Authority to disburse the Bill amounts due to the 1st petitioner on production of the said judgment along with the respective bills and other receipts. The Kerala Water Authority was directed to make payment of such amounts directly to the 1st respondent Bank. Alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner had approached this court again in a contempt of court proceedings. In Ext.P6 judgment the contempt of court case was closed recording the statement to the effect that the Government have decided to W.P.(C).15876/11 -2- release a sum of Rs.1 crore to the petitioner for the project in question and that the said amount will be paid by the Kerala Water Authority on or before 31.3.2010. However, it is conceded that the amount stipulated has not been paid and the immovable property having an extent of 3 Acres comprised in Sy.No.35 (R.Sy.206/2) of Meenamkulam Village in Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, which is the secured asset of the loan transaction, has already been taken over possession in the year 2005. It is submitted that the property is situated close to the Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner is apprehending that the respondents are not taking any steps to protect the property from being encroached by miscreants. Since the fencing is not maintained properly some strangers are attempting to remove sand from the property, is the apprehension. In this writ petition the petitioner is claiming only a relief to the extent of issuing direction to the respondents to protect the property by putting adequate fencing or to permitting the petitioner to have fencing put up at their own cost, and also seeking direction to consider the proposal submitted for one time settlement of the account. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondent Bank. It is submitted that various proposals furnished by the petitioners seeks settlement of the loan account, is under consideration of the higher officials of the respondent Bank. W.P.(C).15876/11 -3- However, the allegation regarding encroachment and misuse of the land is stoutly refuted. It is contended that the Bank is taking effective steps to protect the land and to preserve it. 4. Considering the factual circumstances as narrated above I am of the view that no redressal with respect to the disputed issues can be granted in this writ petition, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is noticed that various steps under the SARFAESI Act has already been taken and the property is in possession of the respondent Bank. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief regarding settlement of the loan account by making approach to the concerned authorities. Since it is evident that such proposals are pending it is for the respondent Bank to take appropriate decision thereof. 5. However, regarding the apprehension with respect to protection and preservation of the land in question, needless to say that, the concerned authorities shall take effective steps. The Bank may consider in permitting the petitioner to put up fencing on their own costs, if necessary. However, it is left open to the respondents to take appropriate decision. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb