IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19759 of 2010(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GLADSTONE, AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.SAMUEL, DREAM LAND, KUTTANINNATHIL, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,SC,TVM.DIST.CO.OP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.19759 of 2010-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the respondent Bank intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Admittedly the petitioner had availed loan from the respondent and defaulted repayment. The proceedings was initiated to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. It is evident that the petitioner has not raised any challenge against the demand notice issued under Section 13(2). Considering the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner as provided under Section 17(1) it is not proper for this Court to restrain the proceedings in a writ petition. 2. However, as a gesture of indulgence this Court issued a direction to the respondent to maintain status quo for a period of one month subject to condition of the W.P(C) No.19759 of 2010-T 2 petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order, ie. on 24.6.2010. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration it is submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated, till date. 3. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedies, if any available under law. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab