JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The aforecaptioned writ appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.17125/2021. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the W.P(C). The respondents herein are the respondents in the W.P(C).

2. Heard Sri.Manju Antoney, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A/ petitioner in the W.P(C), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent- State of Kerala and Sri.E.S.M Kabeer, learned Standing Counsel for the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. appearing for the

2nd respondent.

3. The learned Single Judge has observed that the plea in the writ proceedings is founded on rather fragile grounds, especially on the issue of maintainability of the writ proceedings. However, the learned Single Judge has desisted from giving a ruling on the point of maintainability and has examined the prima facie nature of the case and found out that in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank, it has been stated that there is an attachment from the Family Court, Palakkad in respect of the property sought to be offered as security by the petitioner for securing the claimed loan and that therefore, the 2nd respondent-Bank does not find it appropriate or suitable to accept the said property as security.

4. The learned Single Judge has held that the said stand taken by the 2nd respondent-Bank is essentially within the realm of the managerial wisdom of the Bank to decide the manner in which it should conduct banking transactions and has accordingly dismissed the W.P(C).

5. The respondents would point out that one of the main prayers of the appellants both in the W.P(C) and the writ appeal, is to quash Ext.P-6 to the extent it relates to the impugned attachment in respect of the subject property concerned. It is pointed out by the respondents that Ext.P-6 is a legal opinion given by an empanelled advocate to the respondent-Bank. The appellant does not raise any dispute regarding that and the same is also confirmed from a mere reading of Ext.P-6. So we fail to understand, as to how the appellant could even seek a writ certiorari to quash Ext.P-6, which is only an opinion given by a private advocate. Even according to the appellant, the attachment ordered by the court below concerned in respect of the subject property, on the basis of certain litigative proceedings initiated by the wife of the brother of the appellant in matrimonial disputes, in which the brother, father and mother of the appellant are impleaded as defendants/respondents therein. Further, from the pleadings it appears that the abovesaid attachment is also duly endorsed in Ext.P-7 encumbrance certificate issued by the SRO and also in Ext.P-5 registered partnership deed. The 2nd respondent-Bank has fairly stated in para No.4 of their counter affidavit dated 16.12.2021 filed in this W.P(C) that if the attachment ordered by the Family Court, Palakkad is lifted by the said court, then the 2nd respondent is preferred to consider the loan application of the appellant, based on the legal opinion of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, etc.

6. We fail to understand as to what has prompted the writ petitioner to move the present writ appeal and that too without moving the court below concerned, for lifting of the attachment. Faced with the situation, Sri.Manju Antoney, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that leave may be granted to the appellant to withdraw this writ appeal and to pursue the remedy of filing an application before the Family Court concerned, for lifting of the attachment, to the extent it is directed against the writ petitioner. The respondents have no serious objection to grant the said liberty.

7. Recording the abovesaid submissions of the appellant and with the abovesaid liberty, the above Writ Appeal wil