The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ or certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 notices and quash the same.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs direction or orders restraining the respondents from proceeding further with Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 against the petitioners:”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, proceedings are pending before the D.R.T. Ernakulam by way O.A. No.212/2012, preferred by the Bank. It is stated that the Bank has simultaneously proceeded under the SARFAESI Act as well; when the petitioner approached the DRT by filing S.A. No. 421/2012, wherein Ext.P3 interim order was passed on 07.05.2012. Admittedly, the condition could not be fully satisfied by the petitioner and some Interlocutory Applications have been filed therein. While so, the Bank proceeded with steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, which made the petitioner to approach WP(c). No.30903 of 2014 2 this Court by filing this writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner has already taken steps to withdraw I.A. No.3512/2013, filed before the DRT. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, R.R. proceedings are not at all maintainable in respect of the financial assistance availed by the petitioner and that the proceedings are per se wrong and illegal in all respects and hence the challenge.
3. Adv. Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the idea of understanding the petitioner is wrong and misconceived in all respects. It is pointed out that the financial assistance given to the petitioner is under a particular Scheme ('Developmental Scheme') and as such, it comes squarely within the powers and prerogatives of the respondent Bank to move the Revenue authority invoking the machinery under the R.R. Act for realisation of the due amount. It is also pointed out that the R.R. proceedings by way of Exts.P4 and P5 were issued as early as in May, 2012. Pursuant to the failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy the due amount, Ext.P6 'sale notice' has been issued by the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel points out that, pursuant to O.A.
WP(c). No.30903 of 2014 3 No.212/2012, the sale proclamation is to be produced on 10.12.2014 and the Bank is intending to pursue further steps accordingly. It is stated that the respondent Bank does not intend to proceed with further steps under the R.R. Act for the time being and that, necessary intimation is being forwarded to the revenue authorities in this regard.
The said submission is recorded. In the said circumstances, no further orders are necessary. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn