The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quashing the Advertisement for sale dated 15.10.2014 (Exhibit P4) issued by the respondent No.1.
ii. to issue appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondent No.1 and 2 to take further proceeding to deal/sell/ auction the immovable properties mentioned in the Notice of Advertisement dated 14.10.2014 (Exhibit P4).
iii. to issue appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2014 (Exhibit P5) and to change the reserve price of the said property from Rs.14,64,330/- to Rs.45,00,000/-.
iv. to grant such other reliefs which deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court yesterday, there was no representation for the petitioner and the following interim order was passed:
“The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the entire facts have not been brought to the notice of this Court as pointed out in the statement dated 18.11.2014, also producing copy of the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in WP(C) No.14896 of 2014 [as Annexure R1(a)].
There is no representation for the petitioner. Post tomorrow.”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank W.P.(C) No.30211 of 2014 2 submits that, a detailed statement has been filed, also producing a copy of the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in WP(C) No.14896 of 2014 in the earlier round of litigation. Despite the indulgence shown by this Court, the opportunity was not made use of and the liability was not liquidated. The property was notified for sale on 19.11.2014 as per Ext.P4. But on that day, in spite of the fact that the physical possession of the property was taken over by the Bank, the petitioner encroached into the property and broke open the door, creating a scene. By virtue of this, the tenderors who came to bid the property, left the place. It is also stated that, a complaint has been preferred before the police in respect of the offences committed by the petitioner. There is no representation for the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for interference and the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp