Point of Law: Regularization of loan account - Default in payment of installment - Petitioner was already having facility of instalment. The grant of further instalment for regularising loan account is exclusively province of respondent-Bank.

JUDGMENT :

By this writ petition, the petitioners seek the following prayers:

(i) Declare that Exhibit.P1 notice is unlawful and premature in view of the non-consideration of Exhibit.P2 representation as provided u/s. 13(3A) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(ii) Declare that the whole proceedings initiated by the respondent under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are null and void;

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction order quashing Exhibit P1 notice;

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to consider Exhibit.P2 representation in a time bound manner;

(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the defaulted arrears in 36 equal monthly installments and further regularize re-schedule the loan permitting the petitioners to repay the loan in an extended period of time.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. He argued that the 2nd petitioner is advised to undergo renal transplantation. It is also argued that the petitioners had filed a representation/ objection on receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the respondent-Bank is bound by law to consider such representation or objection. However, the same is not considered by the respondent-Bank and therefore, the entire action taken by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act is illegal. It is further argued that the petitioners are willing to repay the overdue amount in instalments.

3. It is seen from the pleadings made in the writ petition so also from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are challenging the action taken by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act by contending that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and consequential action taken by the respondent is illegal because petitioner's objection was not considered by the respondent-Bank. If that is so, the petitioner has alternate and most efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the matter.

4. The challenge made in the instant writ petition is to the notice at Ext.P1 issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. This notice was preceded by notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. What is sought to be challenged in the instant writ petition is the steps taken by the respondent-Bank under the SARFAESI Act.

5. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018 (1) KLT 784), this writ petition as such cannot be entertained. So far as grant of instalments is concerned, the petitioner has to approach the respondent-Bank for getting instalments. The petitioner was already having facility of instalment. The grant of further instalment for regularising the loan account is exclusively the province of the respondent-Bank.

In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the instant writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to mention that the petitioners have liberty to approach appropriate forum, if they are so advised.