The main legal point established is that compliance with the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 and the Rules is essential for valid foreclosure and auction proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a widow living with three daughters. While working in United Arab Emirates, her husband Sasidharan passed away in the year 2019. In 2016, the petitioner was given five loans for a total amount of Rs.10 lakhs by the 1st respondent-Trivandrum Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Consequent to the death of the petitioner's husband, repayment fell into arrears.

2. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 demand notice dated 07.01.2022 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.6,20,000/-. The petitioner could not pay the amount. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued a notice of proclamation of sale as per Ext.P3. The petitioner contends that the notice was not as required by Section 19 of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1984'). The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 on various grounds.

3. The petitioner states that the Board or the Committee of the Bank has not authorised the sale of property as required under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act, 1984. No registered notice demanding the amount due was sent to the petitioner as required under Section 19(2)(b) read with Section 19(2)(c). The Board or Committee of the Bank did not make an application as required under Section 20 of the Act, 1984. The 2nd respondent-Bank Secretary is not authorised to submit application before the 3rd respondent-Special Sale Officer. Section 20(1) is therefore violated.

4. Copy of the application for effecting sale of mortgaged property was not given to the petitioner. It violates principles of natural justice. Particulars of the property to be sold is not stated in Ext.P2 notice. Rule 8(c) of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1986') is therefore violated. The sale proclamation was in violation of Rule 8(e) of the Rules, 1986. The notices of proclamation of sale were not affixed in the office of the principal officer of the Co-operative Department and in the Taluk Office, as required under law. There was also no publication by beat of tom-tom in the village where the mortgaged property is to be sold. The Sale Officer did not measure out the mortgaged property or value the same. Even an upset price was not fixed. The sale proceedings are vitiated by fraud since there is active concealment of material facts from the petitioner.

5. The mortgaged property has a high centage value and therefore the entire property need not be sold for satisfying the loan amount. Under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1986, no larger section or portion of immovable property shall be sold than that may be sufficient to discharge the amount due with interest and expenses of sale. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Sathyanesan v. State Kerala Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited [2000 (2) KLT 517] and in Sosamma John v. Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and others [2018 (2) KHC 498].

6. The 1st respondent-Bank resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent stated that Ext.P2 demand letter dated 07.01.2022 was issued to the petitioner requiring to pay Rs.6,20,000/-. As the petitioner failed to pay, the Bank foreclosed the loan accounts of the petitioner and forwarded the files to the 3rd respondent-Special Sale Officer for recovery. After Ext.P2 notice, Ext.R1(b) notice was served on the petitioner under Section 20 and Rule 8(c) of the Act, 1984 and the Rules, 1986. Section 19(c) is therefore complied with.

7. The sale proclamation was issued after Ext.R1(b) notice. The Board of the Bank had given due authorisation as required under law. There is no legal requirement for providing copy of the application for effecting sale, to the petitioner. The petitioner has not requested to issue a copy of such application. Notices of proclamation of sale was affixed in the Village Office where the property of t