The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
'i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P9 and quash the same as illegal.
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to stop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P9 during the period of Moratorium.
iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the loans availed by the petitioners in case of any default.
iv) Allow the writ petition with costs.
v) Grant such other further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Paragraph '2' of which reads as follows:
W.P.(C)No.5579 OF 2014 2 “It is humbly submitted that the above writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The writ petitioner has suppressed material facts and has filed this writ petition. The writ petitioner have sold the security property for the loan facilities availed from this Bank by them to one Sri Kookal Santhoshkumar and T.Rajeshwari without the permission/consent of the Bank and in violation of the terms of the agreement with the Bank. The bank has come to know of the same only when the encumbrance certificate of the security property was obtained. The said act of the writ petitioners is in effect depriving the Bank of its valuable security. They have suppressed this fact from this Hon'ble Court and is not entitled to any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. The petitioners cannot be aggrieved by the securitization proceedings when the security property is sold by them to another person. The writ petitioners does not have the locus standi to challenge the proceedings to enforce the security now by the bank. ”
3. .The learned Counsel for the respondent/ Federal Bank W.P.(C)No.5579 OF 2014 3 points out that the secured asset has been sold by the petitioners to one Kookal Santhoshkumar and T.Rajeshwari without any permission, consent or involvement of the Bank.
In the above circumstance, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk