The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P16 and quash the same as illegal;
ii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction restraining the sale of the properties until the secured assets shown in Ext.P12 are sold first.
Iii) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P15 communication declaring the same to be illegal, violating Article 300A of the Constitution of India;
iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider afresh the proposal in Ext.P13 and to pass revised orders after hearing the petitioner
v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to finalise and dispose of the insurance claim within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
vi) Quash Ext.P10 and P11; and
vii) Grant such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that steps are being taken by the respondents to cause sale of different items of the property invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, without any regard to the fact that the said proceedings are not confined to the properties over which mortgage rights has been created in favour of the Bank.
3. The second respondent/Syndicate Bank has filed a counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events and also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts.R2 (a) to R2(c).
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank/Insurance and the learned Government Pleader.
5. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the Bank that the total liability as on date is nearly Rs.1.4 crores in respect of the loan of Rs.75 lakhs given to the petitioner in the year 2009. At the time of granting loan, three different items of property were offered as security, which is discernible from Ext.P12 notice dated 04.07.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that some other properties belonging to the petitioner are also being proceeded against, as discernible from Ext.P16 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioner, item Nos.1 and 5 properties situated in Re.Sy.No.22/26 and 22/30 of Vilvattam village, Thrissur were not properties offered as security. By virtue of the course now being pursued by the respondents, the petitioner is not in a position to cause sale of the said property and to satisfy the loan amount. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
6. It is pointed out from the part of the respondent Bank that the account was declared as 'NPA' way back on 01.04.2009 and Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act was issued on 24.11.2009. The husband of the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C)3046 of 2010, stating that he had preferred a representation before the Bank and the prayer was to cause the same to be considered. It was accordingly, that Ext.R2(a) judgment was passed, directing the Bank to consider the same and to proceed with further steps subject to the outcome of the said representation. It is stated that the representation was considered favourably and the petitioner's husband was let known as per the proceedings bearing No.146/10/4550 dated 23.06.2010 of the DGM virtually re- scheduling the loan with liberty to have repayment effected in the manner as specified therein. The factual position in this regard is conceded by the husband of the petitioner as borne by Ext. R2(b) letter dated 31.01.2011. However, the same was not given any effect to and it was in the said circumstance that the Bank issued another notice under Section 13(2) on 04.07.2011. The parties took up a contention at this stage that the property given as security was an 'agricultural land' and that by virtue of the bar under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the said properties could not be proceeded against. In the said circumstance, the respondent Bank sought to proceed against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, by sending necessary requisition to the revenue authorities as borne by Ext. R2(c) letter dated 03.12.2011. It is also stated that the particulars of the land given as security had been given in the said requisition, but in the further course of proceedings, the revenue authorities made necessary enquiries and came across different items of properties held by the petitioner and her husband, which in turn have been sought to be proceeded against as per Ext.P16 notice. It is pointed out that there is absolutely nothing wrong, improper or illegal on the part of the respondents in proceeding against all the properties concerned. Reference is also made to Ext.P14 representation preferred by the petitioner on 04.11.2013, wherein time sought for by the petitioner to discharge the entire liability was till March, 2014.
9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the course pursued by the respondents in proceeding against the properties concerned is not liable to be termed as arbitrary or illegal in any manner. However, in view of the submission made from the part of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner does not have any objection with regard to the steps to be taken against the secured assets and if necessary, to proceed against other properties concerned, the sale which is stated as scheduled to be held today pursuant to Ext.P16 notice could go on, but if it is found that the amount generated by virtue of sale in respect of the properties listed at 2, 3 and 4 of Ext.P16 is not sufficient enough to clear off the entire liability, it is open for the concerned respondent to proceed with further steps for confirmation of sale in respect of the other two items, ie; 1 and 5. With the above observation, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk