IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24784 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- SA.39/2007 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ------------------- T.G.GOPALAKRISHANAN S/O. GOVINDAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE PONJIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE STATE BANK OF INDIA, 40/974 2ND FLOOR, R.S.BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM 2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R1 SRI.SAJU N.A. FOR R1 SMT.G.LEKHA FOR R1 SMT.P.J.FLONY FOR R1 SRI.N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.24784 OF 2008(A) ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The State Bank of India, of which the first respondent is the authorised officer, initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued possession notice. That measure is subject to S.A. 39/2007 filed by the petitioner before the D.R.T. No interim order was granted ex-parte in that case. I.A. 987/2007 is stated to be pending for interlocutory order of stay of all further proceedings pending that appeal. In the meanwhile, the bank took further steps to sell the property. This writ petition is on the ground that D.R.T. is not hearing the I.A.987/2007 since the Presiding Officer demitted office on superannuation. This Court is aware that alternate arrangement has been made for camp sittings and charge has been given to the Presiding Officer of the another D.R.T. Not only that, it is not for this Court to W.P.(C) No.24784/2008 - 2 - meddle with the listing of the cases before the D.R.T., which has a scheme of rules for that. Over and above, all these, the learned counsel for the first respondent has very fairly stated that there is some error in the procedure initiating sale, in the matter of the issuance of sale notice and that the same has been dropped. This is recorded and this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the bank to initiate further action, in accordance with law, subject to any interlocutory orders that may be passed by the D.R.T. All other issues are left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/22/8 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.