Kerala High Court
Manilal vs Special Sale Officer on 21 January, 2019
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 1ST MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018
PETITIONER:
MANILAL
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. BASKARAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, BHARAMAKULAM
VILLAGE, POOVATHUR DESOM P.O.POOVATHUR VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680508.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS:
1 SPECIAL SALE OFFICER
THE CHAVAKKAD FIRKA RURAL BANK,
ASST.REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OFFICE, MUTHUVATTUR P.O,
CHAVAKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503.
2 THE CHITTATTUKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
NO. R.1642,P.O. CHITTATTUKARA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY - 680 503.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who availed a loan for Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent Service Co- operative Bank, which is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the rules made thereunder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice dated 08.11.2018 issued by the 1st respondent Special Sale Officer and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to him. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the respondents to grant him instalment facility in order to remit the dues towards the 2nd respondent Bank.
2. On 05.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and passed the following order; WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018 3
"On a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a chronic defaulter and that, after availing the loan, he had made certain payments. The said submission is recorded.
Issue urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the respondents, returnable by 12.12.2016.
There will be an interim stay of Ext.P1 sale notice for a period of three weeks on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the 2nd respondent on or before 08.12.2018.
It is made clear that, if no such remittance is made, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the sale."
3. On 19.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not raise Rs.1,00,000/-, in order to comply with the condition stipulated in the order of this Court dated 05.12.2018.
4. Thereafter, on 13.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018 4 submitted that the total liability as on 10.12.2018 comes to Rs.10,54,468/- and that, the petitioner has not complied with the condition stipulated in the order of this Court dated 05.12.2018.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is also pointed out that, after availing domestic loan for Rs.5,00,000/- from the Bank on 08.01.2014, based on Ext.R1(a) loan application-cum-sanctioning order, and executing Ext.R2(b) bond, the remittance made by the petitioner was for a total sum of Rs.47,000/-.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 1st respondent Special Sale Officer.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018 5 would submit that due to financial stringency, the petitioner could not comply with the condition stipulated in the order of this Court dated 05.12.2018.
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank would point out that the recovery step initiated against the petitioner is one based on Ext.R2(c) award passed by the 1st respondent Special Sale Officer-cum-Arbitrator in ARC No.569/2016, which is being executed in E.P.No.153/2018. In such circumstances, the petitioner is bound to effect repayment in terms of Ext.R2(c) award passed by the Arbitrator, which is one dated 30.05.2017.
9. Since, going by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not even prepared to pay off the dues within a reasonable time in monthly instalments and further, the petitioner has not complied with the condition stipulated in the WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018 6 order of this Court dated 05.12.2018, no relief can be granted in this writ petition and the same can only be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme, i.e., Navakeraleeyam Kudisika Nivaranam 2019 introduced vide Circular No.61/2018 dated 26.11.2018 and Circular No.67/2018 dated 31.01.2018 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible under the said scheme and he approaches the Bank with such request, within the time limit stipulated in those circulars.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE AV/22/1 WP(C).No. 39499 of 2018 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.11.2018.