Court declines Art.226 jurisdiction where prior judgments directed repayment, allowing statutory remedies for sale challenge.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2026 --------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 5^th day of May, 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the sale of mortgaged properties on the ground that the second respondent had not issued a notice under Rule 74(2) and (3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The petitioner has availed a loan from the first respondent. Since there was a default the first respondent obtained an arbitration award under Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No.46603 of 2024 which was disposed of by judgment dated 23.08.2025 directing the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding amount in 24 equal monthly instalments. Later, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No.12227 of 2026 and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.04.2026, the said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the Bank issued a notice on 30.03.2026 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.64,29,090/-. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is not in terms of the statutory mandate and therefore the petitioner is entitled to have the period for repayment mentioned in Ext.P2 to be extended for a further period by providing in instalments.

2. Heard Sri.Dileep Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

In the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ petition No.46603 of 2024 dated 23.08.2025 and also Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.04.2026, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the jurisdiction is declined, however, the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke its statutory remedies, if available, under the statute against the sale of the mortgaged property.