The petitioner was aggrieved with the recovery proceedings issued obviously without considering the Scheme under Ext.P3. The father of the petitioner was the borrower who is said to have died when the loan was pending. The petitioner claimed relief under the Risk fund Scheme, the contribution of which has been deducted as per Ext.P1. The respondent Bank had, by Ext.P3 directed the petitioner to produce death certificate as also the hire-ship certificate. The petitioner had produced the same and the respondent Bank is said to have forwarded the application to the Risk Fund Board which is said to have rejected the prayer of the petitioner for reason of the petitioner's father having crossed 65 years of age. The petitioner submits that he has not been WP(C).5369/12 2 communicated with such rejection order. The Risk Fund Board was not a party herein and there is no challenge against the order. 2. I.A.14285 of 2014 for impleadment is filed only on 20.10.2014. Even if the impleadment is carried out, the petitioner will first have to challenge the rejection order said to have been passed on 13.02.2012. Leaving open such remedies, the writ petition stands closed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//