The petitioner borrowed certain amount from the respondent Bank and defaulted in its repayment. The respondent Bank, as a result, initiated recovery proceedings before the first respondent--the Arbitration Court.

2. As seen from the record, the first respondent issued Exhibit P2 summons requiring the petitioner to attend the enquiry/trial on 18.08.2015 at Kannur Branch of the respondent Bank. The petitioner participated. The second hearing also took place on 29.09.2015 at Kannur. Subsequently, the first respondent decided to have the next hearings at Thiruvananthapuram, where the Head Office of the respondent Bank is situated. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner's singular grievance is that he lives far away from Thiruvananthapuram and that for every hearing he has to travel over twelve hours. According to him, having held the initial two hearings at Kannur, the respondent Bank ought to have had its camp sittings for a further hearing at the same place.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically contended that the first respondent is estopped from shifting the venue of hearing for it offends the common law principl