1 29 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1437/2006. Durga Shanker Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 27th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.K. Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: While entertaining this writ petition against the notice dated 18.02.2006 (Annex.9), this Court, after noticing the contentions and submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner, passed the following order on 27.03.2006 :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, inter alia, that the petitioner had already been made an offer for one time settlement and he is ready to square up the accounts with the Bank, however, the respondents have proceeded contrary to law and have not even taken into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is, at present, ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) on or before 31st March 2006 with the respondents. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, issue notices to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. In the meanwhile and until further orders, further proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) with the respondent No.3 Mahadev Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sirohi on or before 31st March 2006. Learned counsel shall submit process fees and notices in two sets within two weeks. On filing, notices be issued returnable on 20.04.2006. One set be given 'Dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service on the respondents by registered post acknowledgment due. It is made clear that on the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of this order, the stay order shall stand vacated without reference to the Court.” 2 It is not in dispute that the requirements of the said order dated 27.03.2006 have not been carried out by the petitioner and he has not deposited the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as proposed. The submissions essentially made on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner was always ready to square up the account in one time settlement and the order as passed by the Arbitrator on 18.12.2003 (Annex.5) has been referred wherein the respondent Bank was directed to extend equal treatment to the petitioner and to take up the matter in one time settlement schemes and extend sympathetic consideration and concessions to the petitioner in accordance with law. The communication from petitioner dated 23.02.2006 (Annex. 10) has also been referred wherein the petitioner submitted that as against the loan of Rs. 10,10,000/-, he had already deposited Rs. 17,75,000/- and was ready to make payment of another sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- in one time settlement. It is submitted that the respondents are not justified in taking coercive proceedings against the petitioner without considering his requests and without considering even the order as passed by the Arbitrator. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner are opposed on behalf of the respondent-Bank and it is submitted that in this writ petition, the petitioner has attempted to challenge only the notice dated 18.02.2006 (Annex. 9) that was issued in recovery proceedings pursuant to the decree dated 06.10.2004 as made in Case No. 88/2003-04 (Annex. R/1). The submission on 3 behalf of the respondent-Bank has been that there is no challenge to the decree as passed against the petitioner that has become final and standing such decree, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge merely its execution proceedings. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was not covered under the one time settlement scheme as the said scheme was earlier in force only in relation to the cases involving the amount upto Rs. 25,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has not even carried out the requirements of the orders passed by this Court and is not entitled for any relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is noticed that on 27.03.2006, specific submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2006 with the respondents and the submissions were made that the petitioner was ready to square up the account with the Bank but his request for one time settlement has not been taken into consideration by the Bank. Upon the petitioner's making unequivocal assertion before this Court that he was ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and was willing to sqaure up the account that the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and further proceedings against the petitioner were conditionally stayed upon his depositing the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the respondents. The petitioner having not carried out the requirements of the said order that was essentially passed on the basis of his 4 assertions, the petitioner has effectively demonstrated that he has not been fair in his conduct, whether with the respondents or with the Court. The petitioner is, obviously, not entitled for any relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the decree passed against the petitioner has already become final cannot be said to be without substance. Mere challenge to the recovery proceedings remains hollow and baseless. So far the submissions with reference to the order dated 18.12.2003 (Annex.5) are concerned, the observations therein had only been to motivate the petitioner to have the matter settled in one time settlement and to extend him the concessions whatever available in law. It is apparent from the conduct of the petitioner that the so-called settlement proposals were more of pretensions rather than bona fide propositions. This Court is unable to find any reason to extend indulgence to the petitioner any further. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed; and for that matter, with costs. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/