High Court Kerala High Court

V.S. Thampi vs State Bank Of Travancore on 7 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
V.S. Thampi vs State Bank Of Travancore on 7 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6269 of 2009(C)


1. V.S. THAMPI, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SRI. BABY JOSEPH, S/O. V.C. JOSEPH,
3. SMT. VALSA THAMPI,

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :07/04/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                       W.P.(C) No. 6269 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                        Dated this the 7th April , 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed a memo dated 05.04.2010

seeking for permission to withdraw the Writ Petition without

prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the alternate

remedy by approaching the DRT .

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, referring to

the sequence of events opposed the relief prayed for with

regard to the reservation of right to pursue the statutory

remedy.

3. Considering the fact that the merits of the case have

not been discussed or decided by this Court, nothing prevents

the petitioner from availing the statutory remedy, which in fact,

is a vested right. The fact that the petitioner failed to comply

with the condition imposed by this Court while granting the

interim relief is not sufficient to forfeit such statutory right . If

W.P.(C) No. 6269 OF 2009

2

the condition is not complied with, the only consequence is that

the discretionary jurisdiction invoking the power under Article

226 of the Constitution may not be exercised, warranting

dismissal of the Writ Petition, which otherwise cannot place any

hurdle in availing the statutory remedy.

In the said circumstance, the Writ Petition is permitted to

be withdrawn with liberty to avail the statutory remedy.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk