IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21488 of 2009(E)
1. AMU ALIAS MANU, S/O. ALAVI, AGED 70
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM PRIMARY
... Respondent
2. OFFICE INSPECTOR/SPECIAL SALE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 21488 OF 2009 (E)
=====================
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an
auction notice published by the Sale Officer on 15/6/09 proposing
to auction the property of the petitioner on 31/7/09 for realising
Rs.4,73,982/- along with other charges. The contention raised by
the petitioner is that he had availed of a loan of only Rs.70,000/-
and that since the amount shown in Ext.P2 was exorbitant, he
sought clarification and that the same has not been given. It is
his complaint that despite the above, the Bank is proceeding with
the auction.
2. Ext.P1 is the complaint that is stated to have been
made by the petitioner and Ext.P3 is the reply. A reading of Ext.P3
shows that on 15th of February, 1999, petitioner had applied for a
loan of Rs.2 lakhs. The loan was sanctioned and he executed all
necessary documents. Thereafter, in instalments, he received
payment of Rs.1,70,000/- and no repayment has been made till
date.
3. In so far as his dispute about the principal amount that
WPC 21488/09
:2 :
is received is concerned, in Ext.P3 it is stated that in the
petitioner’s own letter dated 21/3/2006, he has admitted of
having received Rs.1,70,000/-. It is stated that Rs.1,70,000/- is
repayable with interest at 15.5% and that over the years, the
amount has accumulated and what is shown in Ext.P2 is the
amount that is now due.
4. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the
contentions that are now raised by the petitioner.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp