IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10722 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.U.MAYADEVI, W/O.E.A.JAYAKUMAR, 'VISHNU VIHAR', 50/114C, PONEVAZHY, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, ELAMAKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD.ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10722 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 possession notice dated 14.1.2009 issued under the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank has already filed a proceedings under the RDB Act as O.A.96/08. Under such circumstances, it may not be proper for this Court to require the bank to consider regularising the transaction. The petitioner has offered an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- along with Ext.P3 representation. The petitioner has adequate remedy against Ext.P1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT, acting under the RDB Act, has the power to let the parties settle the transaction by negotiation. Such facility would also be available within the realm of the securitisation application. Under such circumstances, I do not find it necessary for this Court to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is, hence, dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners rights to move the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.4/4.