Rajeev Kumar vs The Authorised Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5719 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER/S:

                RAJEEV KUMAR,
                S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, GURUNAGAR 79,
                KALLUMATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.SIVARAJ
                SMT.R.SUDARSANA DEVI
                SRI.I.P.VARGHESE
                SMT.M.M.LAIJU NISSA
                SMT.M.MEHAR FARSANA

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
                KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD, NO. 960,
                KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 001

      2         ADV. SINU P.K,
                ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM-691 009




                R1 BY SMT. D.P RENU, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021

                                            2




                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

The petitioner has filed this petition with the

following prayers.

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P4 and quash the same;

ii) to declare that the petitioner is not bound to act upon Ext.P4 as the same is obtained by 1st and 2nd respondents with the support of their henchmen in the presence of policeman brought by 2nd respondent using threat and force;

iii) To direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner and his family from their property unless an order is passed by the Tribunal after hearing both parties in S.A.No. 78 of 2020 altering the Ext.P1 order;

iv) Issue such other writ, order or WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021

dirction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew

my attention to the order at Ext.P1 and submitted

that, the status quo was operating in favour of the

petitioner. It is further argued that, because of

Covid-19 pandemic, there was no sitting of the Debt

Recovery Tribunal. It was noted that the Presiding

Officer was on leave and therefore, the cases were

reposted at the same stage. With this, it is further

argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that,

though the Securitization Application filed by the

petitioner is now posted for further hearing on

15.04.2021, the Advocate Commissioner has issued

notices Exts.P2 and P3 to the petitioner, and it is

communicated to the petitioner that physical

possession of the property shall be taken.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021

prayed that the respondents be directed to maintain

status quo.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents oppose the

petition by contending that the petitioner was absent

when the Securitization Application was listed for

hearing and as of now, no status quo is operating in

favour of the petitioner.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced

and perused the materials placed before me.

6. It is not in dispute that the Securitization

Application No.78/2020 is pending on the file of the

learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.

Undisputedly, on 22.02.2020 (Ext.P1), learned

Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal was pleased to

direct maintaining of the status quo till next date

of hearing. It is seen that the said order was not

further extended by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The

Securitization Application is still pending on the

file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner

is free to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for

extension of the status quo order. The WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021

petitioner as such cannot insist this Court to extend

the status quo order, which shall certainly an

encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery

Tribunal, in the light of the fact that the

Securitization Application is still pending

consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

The petition as such is devoid of merits and the

same is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

uu

17.2.2021 WP(C).No.4177 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.02.2020 IN S.A. NO. 78 0F 2020 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.01.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER DTD 10.02.2021 SENT BY PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING AND APOLOGY MADE BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 12.02.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF TREATMENT RECORDS OF PETITIONER'S MOTHER SMT. PUSHPAVALLY.