IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2006 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ T.P.ABDUL RAHMAN, ANAPPARA HOUSE, KANTHAPURAM, P.O.UNNIKULAM - 673 574, KOYILANDY. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BALUSSERY BRANCH, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL II, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, STANDING COUNCIL MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.2006 of 2010-A ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action being pursued by the respondents denying the benefit of 'One Time Settlement'. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is pursuing earnest efforts to clear the liability and in tune with the direction given by the bank, he has deposited 25% of the outstanding amount as borne by Ext.P7, seeking for the benefit of 'One Time Settlement'. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, with reference to the statement filed in the Writ Petition submits that, as per the particular scheme issued/approved as formulated by the respondent bank on the basis of the Rules prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India it is clearly stipulated that, in the case of amounts, which are due under a Decree, the benefit of One Time Settlement is not liable to be extended under any circumstances. In the instant case, the matter has become final by virtue of the verdict passed in O.S.No.3 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Koyilandy, enabling the W.P(C) No.2006 of 2010-A 2 respondent bank to realise the sum of Rs.5,40,086.62 with further interest and cost as provided and this being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of One Time Settlement. Even though, the communication was already issued to the petitioner as to the benefit of One Time Settlement and the petitioner has remitted 25% of the amount, it does not confer any vested right to the petitioner to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement; submits the learned counsel. Obviously, there is no challenge against the 'Scheme' and the relief prayed for is only to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement. When the 'Scheme' itself stipulates that the benefit will be applicable or provided as clearly presented therein, there can't be any deviation. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the eligibility off the petitioner to have the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme is quite wrong and misconceived. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire liability in a phased manner. Considering the rival submissions, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within one month and the W.P(C) No.2006 of 2010-A 3 balance shall be cleared by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 15.4.2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will open to the bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab