IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12669 of 2010(G)
1. K.RAMESH, ROHINI, OORUPOIKA P.O.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.DINESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.12669 of 2010-G
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the successful bidder, who took part in the
public auction conducted by the respondent Bank in connection with
the steps for realization of the amount stated as due from the
defaulter, who had availed a loan from the respondent Bank creating
security interest over the property in question.
2. The case of the petitioner is that even though the
property was notified as having 8.3 ares vide Ext.P1 notification,
subsequently on conducting the measurement by the petitioner, it
was actually found as having only an extent of 6.39 ares and in the
said circumstances, the petitioner demanded to return the EMD paid
by the petitioner, as not interested to have the said extent. The
request made by the petitioner was turned down from the part of
the respondents, stating that the property was subjected to sale by
way of public auction and that if the petitioner was aggrieved in any
manner, it was for him to approach the Civil Court for redressal of
his grievance.
W.P(C) No.12669 of 2010-G 2
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the auction conducted at the instance of the Bank was in tune with
the relevant provisions of the law and the terms of Ext.P1
notification. The version put forth from the part of the petitioner is
also rebutted from the part of the Bank, seeking to sustain the
action in forfeiting the EMD, on the basis of the failure from the part
of the petitioner to clear 25% of the bid amount and satisfying the
balance amount as specified. In any view of the matter, this Court
finds that, to have proper adjudication of the matter, it requires
evidence to be adduced before the appropriate forum, as to the
actual facts and figures and this Court does not propose to go into
the merit of the case.
In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the
Writ Petition is dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of
the petitioner to substantiate the case projected in the Writ Petition.
All the issues raised in the Writ Petition are left open.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab