A writ petition becomes infructuous when the primary concerns underlying the petition are no longer applicable, such as the absence of bidders for the property in question.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner is the Managing Director of J & A Foundation Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in piling works across Kerala. According to the petitioner, a loan was availed from the respondent Bank in connection with the business activities of the company. Upon default in repayment, the 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings by filing O.A. No.131/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, and obtained a Recovery Certificate.

2. Subsequently, a proclamation of sale was issued as Ext. P1 for the sale of four lots of properties as Schedules A to H.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a third party was willing to purchase the petitioner’s property and that an agreement has already been executed between the petitioner and the said third party, which is produced as Ext. P2. The consideration shown therein is ₹32,00,000/-

(Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs only).

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had approached the 2^nd respondent with a one-time settlement proposal for ₹4 crores, which is produced as Ext. P3. However, the petitioner was served with Ext. P4 rejection notice.

Thereafter, another proposal was submitted as Ext. P5. 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner prays for Issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P1 sale notice, and for grant of reasonable time of one month to settle the loan account under the one-time settlement scheme.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that insofar as the second prayer is concerned, the same already stands rejected by communication dated 20.02.2026, wherein the petitioner was granted an option to avail settlement on payment of an upfront amount of 10% of the total amount due.

7. With respect to the first prayer, it is submitted that a separate writ petition, W.P.(C) No.5594 of 2026, has been filed by the third party, and this Court has already passed an order permitting the Bank to proceed with the auction in respect of properties included in Schedules G and H. It is further submitted that there are no bidders in respect of the properties included in Schedules A to D.

8. A perusal of Ext. P2 would show that the property which is the subject matter of the agreement is comprised in Sy. No.32/7, having an extent of 3.71 Ares, obtained as per Sale Deed No.1431/2005 of the Sub Registrar Office, Edappally, entered in Book No.1, Volume 1735, pages 75 to 83. On comparing the said property with Schedule B in Ext. P1, Lot No.1, it is evident that the very same property is included therein. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are no bidders in respect of the said property.

9. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any apprehension regarding the sale of the said property. Consequently, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition have become infructuous.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-