Latha Prasad vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 16939 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 9701 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          LATHA PRASAD, AGED 50 YEARS
          W/O. PRASAD D, BHAKTHI VILAS HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O.
          MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM 686 576.

          SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
          SRI.E.S.SANEEJ
          SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
          SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA
          SRI.N.ABHILASH
          SRI.T.A.JOY
          SRI.DEEPU RAJAGOPAL
          SRI. ANILKUMAR P.



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (FORMERLY KOTTAYAM
          DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK), HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
          686001,.

    2     BRANCH MANAGER,
          KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
          (FORMERLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATE BANK), RAMAPURAM
          BRANCH, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM 686 576.

          SRI.ATHUL SHAJI




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9701 OF 2021
                                2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that

her representation, namely Ext.P2, be directed to be taken up

and disposed of by the respondent - Bank.

2. Sri.Athul Shaji, the learned standing counsel for the

respondent - Bank, submitted that Ext.P1 notice is not a

statutory notice under the provisions of the Securitization

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), but is only one issued to

intimate the petitioner that certain amounts are due from her.

He submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner only wants

Ext.P2 to be taken up and disposed of , there does not appear

to be any legal impediment; but prayed that this Court may

not make any affirmative declarations as to the entitlement of

the petitioner to any relief and leave it to the competent

Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law.

3. Taking note of the afore submissions and since Ext.P1

is not a statutory notice, I deem it appropriate to allow this

writ petition, acceding to the suggestion of Sri.Athul Shaji

afore.

WP(C) NO. 9701 OF 2021

4. In such circumstances, I direct the first respondent to

take up Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner and dispose it

of, after affording her an opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating

in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible but before any action under the SARFAESI Act is

initiated.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE STU WP(C) NO. 9701 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9701/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS WITH PROPOSAL DATED 03.04.2021.