M.Boominathan, v. State Bank Of India, Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD W.P.(MD)No.16211 of 2018 M.Boominathan ... Petitioner -Vs1.State Bank of India, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Administrative Office Building, Zonal Office, MC Donald Road, Trichy.

2.The Authorized Officer cum The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nehruji Road, Dindigul.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the sale certificate dated 23.03.2018 with the Sub Registrar's Office, Dindigul in respect of the property comprised in Plot No.34, measuring 2902 1⁄2 Sq ft in S.No.678/6, 678/7 in Chettnaikenpatty Village, Dindigul Taluk & District and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representations dated 08.04.2018 and 18.06.2018 within a time frame. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.H.Thayumana Samy

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.] The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to register the sale certificate dated 23.03.2018 with the Sub Registrar's Office, Dindigul in respect of the property comprised in Plot No.34, measuring 2902 1⁄2 Sq.ft in S.Nos.678/6 and 678/7 in Chettnaikenpatty Village, Dindigul Taluk & District and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner by considering his representations dated 08.04.2018 and 18.06.2018.

2.According to the petitioner, the subject property was brought for auction by the respondent Bank, wherein, the petitioner was a successful bidder and he also paid a sum of Rs.59,75,000/-. Thereafter, a sale certificate was issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner on 26.03.2018. However, possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner. Hence, he made a representation to the respondent Bank on 08.04.2018 and a reminder on 18.06.2018 to register the sale certificate and to hand over possession of the property, but the same were not considered. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3.None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2018 within a time frame.

5.Recording the above submission, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondent Bank to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.04.2018, if not disposed of earlier and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

[R.M.D., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.] 21.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Myr

R.MAHADEVAN , J.

AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

Myr W.P.(MD)No.16211 of 2018 21.09.2022