Santhabhai Amma Vs The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, 8th Floor, K.S.H.B. Building, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi- 682 036 and The Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore, P.B. No. 22, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram

Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to have a private sale of the property belonging to the petitioner scheduled in Ext.P3 within a time limit.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to determine the value of the property scheduled in Ext.P3 and sell such portion that is required to satisfy the debt.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to adjourn the sale scheduled on 10.07.2012 to a date after 6 months to enable the petitioner to have a private sale of the property in question.

(iv) issue any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner is the owner of forty cents of land in Re.Sy.No. 100/06 of Aryanad Village in Nedumangad Taluk. The petitioner stood as a guarantor for a loan availed by one Santhosh Kumar and security interest was created over the property belonging to the petitioner. Since there was chronic default from the borrower, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank as well.

3. It is borne out by the pleadings and proceedings that, challenging the steps taken by the Bank, the petitioner had already approached the DRT, availing the statutory remedy by filing S.A.No. 145/2010. After considering the case projected by the petitioner, Ext.P1 interim order was passed on 19/02/2010 intercepting the coercive proceedings, subject to the condition as specified therein, which admittedly could not be satisfied by the petitioner and it is stated that the DRT finally dismissed the securitisation application. It was thereafter, that further proceedings were pursued by the Bank, including by filing a petition u/s 14 before the CJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram, leading to Ext.P2 order dated 12/05/2010 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property. The property was put to sale as per Ext.P3 sale notice and the sale was scheduled to be held on 10/07/2012, which made the petitioner to rush to this Court for immediate intervention.

4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, the sale did not take place on 10/07/2012 for want of bidders and that the same stands adjourned to 11/08/2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief pressed before this Court is to permit to have '' private sale'' so as to fetch the maximum price for the property. This Court finds that there is no dispute for the petitioner with regard to the liability to satisfy the amount due or as to the correctness or sustainability of the steps taken by Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It is also admitted that the remedy availed by the petitioner u/s 17 stands rejected for not satisfying the condition imposed by the Tribunal. This being the position, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for any interference invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner wants to pursue the course by a ''private sale'', it is of course open for the petitioner to approach the Bank by revealing the identity of the person concerned who is ready to purchase the property, so as to make appropriate arrangements with the Bank for causing the sale consideration paid directly to the Bank, instead of passing on the amount to the petitioner. Since the sale is scheduled only on 11.08.2012, this Court finds that the petitioner has sufficient time to make appropriate arrangements of her own in this regard.

In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.