IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 20368 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

IBRAHIM B M, AGED 46 YEARS S/O B.M. ADDI, R/AT NAZEER MANZIL, BADRIYA NAGAR, KOIPADY VILLAGE, POST KUMBALA, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGODE DISTRICT, PIN – 671321 BY ADVS.

UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL P.PARVATHY SHERIL ABRAHAM R.UDAYA KUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KUMBLA BRANCH, VISHWANATHA ALVA SAHAKARI BUILDING, KUMBLA (KUMBLE), KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 671321

2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/

AREA MANAGER, PIN - 695033

3 JANARDANAN K., ADVOCATE, KASARAGODE BAR, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGODE IN C.M.P 818/2024, PIN – 671319 BY ADV M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2024 The petitioner has availed a financial assistance from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank limited. The petitioner could not maintain the loan account. The Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The petitioner states that the Bank invoked Section

14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has obtained Ext.P3 order dated 28.02.2024 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod. In the ordinary course, the Advocate Commissioner has to issue notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner has not issued notice. Unless the petitioner is served with a notice of the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner will not be able to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.

3. In the afore facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent bank not to proceed with the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 through the 3^rd respondent Advocate Commissioner without issuance of physical possession notice;

(ii) To declare that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are irregular and illegal and that the respondent bank cannot realise any amount from the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents not to proceed with further proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or under any other proceedings and;

(iv) To pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the Bank, it is submitted that the petitioner has been consistently making default in repayment of dues and that is the reason for the Bank for invoking coercive proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In the ordinary course, the Advocate Commissioner will issue notice before taking over physical possession of the property.

5. Heard.

6. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s secured asset, which is in the possession of the petitioner, should not be taken possession by the Advocate Commissioner or by the Bank without notice.