M.M. Bashir vs Special Sale Officer and Others

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The appellant, who was the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28115 of 2004, is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the verdict declining interference with regard to the prayer sought for to set aside Ext.P1 sale notice and to have Ext.P2 representation disposed of on merits.

The case of the appellant is that he was only a guarantor to the loan availed by the 4th respondent from the 2nd respondent Bank and the property of the appellant/petitioner was offered as the security for the loan. It is contended that the 4th respondent turned to be a defaulter, in spite of which, the 2nd respondent chose to grant further loan to him and it is in furtherance to the default of the 4th respondent, that the due amount is sought to be realized from the petitioner, without any steps against the principal debtor, leading to Ext.P1 sale notice, which is under challenge.

Going by the materials on record, particularly the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent Bank in the writ petition, it is revealed that, the bank proceeded with steps for realisation of the due amount by filing an arbitration case before the 3rd respondent, which culminated in an ''award'',enabling the bank to recover the amount with interest. This, however, was challenged by the petitioner and the 4th respondent by filing necessary proceedings before the Co-operative Tribunal, where interference was declined and the award passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed.

The petitioner/appellant has no case that the Award, confirmed by the Tribunal, has been subjected to any further challenge. The petitioner approached this Court challenging only the consequential proceedings by way of Ext.P1 sale notice, contending that the property of the petitioner could not be proceeded against, before proceeding against the borrower/4th respondent or the 5th respondent (another guarantor), the wife of 4th respondent.

Taking note of the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge observed that the contention raised on the part of the petitioner did not deserve any merit and that, the borrower and guarantor were jointly and severally liable for the defaulted amount. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed; which in turn ended in this writ appeal.

In view of the absence of any case by the appellant that the award passed by the 3rd respondent and the verdict passed by the Tribunal have been challenged in any manner, the said proceedings have become final and as such, the appellant cannot successfully challenge the ''consequential steps'' leading to Ext.P1 sale proceedings. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined interference. We do not see any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in any manner and as such no interference is warranted. None of the grounds raised in support of the appeal does serve any purpose. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.