IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 11483 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- SA.42/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.NAZAR, S/O MAMMU, AGED 47 YEARS, KINAKKOOL HOUSE, P.O.IRIKKOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR BRANCH, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. MR. C.K.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O HAMEED, RESIDING AT MUBARAK MANZIL, NEAR PRIYA THEATER, MATTANNUR. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI - R1 ADV. SRI.C.KHALID - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.11483 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the steps taken by the first respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act against the property of the petitioner is void ab initio and that he is entitled to have a direction to include the transaction for One Time Settlement Scheme and in terms of the budget proposal for the year 2008-09. A further direction is also sought for to the DRT to entertain an appeal. Different other directions are also sought for. 2. WP(C)No.28826 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner challenging invocation of SARFAESI proceedings. This Court held that there is no ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed that distress action WPC11483/08 -:2:- against the petitioner will be suspended on the basis of conditions imposed as per that judgment. Petitioner filed W.A.No.563 of 2008 against that judgment. Writ appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application before the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. Though the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.6669 of 2008, that was dismissed without granting any relief because the petitioner has filed a writ petition earlier for the same relief, WP(C) No.28826/2007 and that was disposed of granting instalment facility on some conditions, which was not complied with by the petitioner. That judgment was challenged in W.A.No.563 of 2008 which was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner. Again the petitioner filed WP(C)No.9356 of 2008 in which Ext.P13 judgment was issued by this Court taking clear view that the petitioner cannot have a merry- go-round and a musical chair again by scouting different fora and still trying to sustain that WPC11483/08 -:3:- writ petition for further relief on different grounds. 3. After all the aforesaid proceedings, the writ petition in hand is moved on the premise that the property proceeded against the agricultural land and still further that the transaction was entitled to be brought under the beneficial scheme extended by the Union Bank. 4. All issues relatable to invocation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, in my view, stand concluded by the repeated judgments of this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. Though the petitioner seeks a direction to grant benefits granted to agricultural loans vide budget proposal, I am clear in my mind that the budget proposal does not give rights to any fresh cause of action. As of now, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the DRT also stands WPC11483/08 -:4:- dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.