IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37463 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 75 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. ANNAMMA, W/O.VARGHESE, AGED 70 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN SRI.V.G.VISAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PEERMADE TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.1,273. HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT ELAPPARA AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SPECIAL SALES OFFICER 685 509. ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37463/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 16.11.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DTD. 22.12.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37463 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had availed agricultural loans from the respondent-bank. When they committed default in repaying the loans, the bank took steps for sale of the security in terms of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Banks Act, 1984. Ext.P1 sale notice was thereupon issued proposing to sell the security by public auction on 22.12.2010. This writ petition was thereupon filed on 15.12.2010 challenging the proposed sale. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that a one time settlement scheme is presently in force in the respondent bank, that the scheme will lapse on 28.2.2011 and that if the petitioners are desirous of claiming the benefits thereunder, the petitioners may move an appropriate application before the Secretary of the bank in terms of the said scheme. The learned counsel also submitted that due to the interim order passed by this Court, though the sale was held on 22.12.2010, it was not confirmed. The learned counsel also submitted that under the one time settlement scheme, the petitioners will get substantial waiver of penal interest and therefore the writ petition may W.P.(C) No.37463 of 2010 2 be disposed of reserving liberty with the petitioners to approach the bank and avail the benefit of one time settlement scheme. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for an opportunity to pay the entire amount demanded in Ext.P1 in instalments. In my opinion, in view of the offer made by the respondent bank that the bank will consider the petitioner's entitlement for one time settlement scheme which is in force till 28.2.2011, the petitioner should approach the bank instead of seeking the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that in the event of the petitioners moving the respondent bank before 28.2.2011 claiming the benefit of the one time settlement scheme presently in force, the bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, if the petitioners comply with the procedural formalities for grant of benefits under the said scheme. Till a decision is taken in the matter, the sale held on 22.12.2010 shall not be confirmed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.