IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 17292 of 2009 Between: Atchuta Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Managar, Mangalagiri Branch, Guntur District and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 17292 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner’s father during his lifetime borrowed certain amounts from the 1st respondent-State Bank of India, Mangalagiri Branch, Guntur District, in the year 1996 and the petitioner stood as guarantor. As the said amount was not paid in time, the 1st respondent-bank filed O.A.No.766 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal), and the same was decreed ex parte on 18-11-2003. Before that, the 1st respondent-bank got issued notice dated 24-03-2003 directing the petitioner’s father to avail the facility i.e. One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme and as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner’s father deposited an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- on 20-12-2003. Thereafter, when he tried to deposit a further sum of Rs.26,00,000/-, the respondent-bank refused to receive the same as he did not comply with the condition stipulated in the O.T.S. Scheme. Thereafter, when the properties were brought to sale, the petitioner’s father filed Securitization Appeal in S.A.No.111 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 26-02-2009 observing that the respondent-bank may consider the offer made by the petitioner under O.T.S. Scheme as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.3921 of 2004 filed by the petitioner’s father. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the respondent-bank and gave a representation on 27-07-2009 requesting them to permit him to avail the benefits provided for under the O.T.S. Scheme. The respondent-bank addressed a letter to the petitioner directing him to come forward with his terms and also for oral settlement. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the respondent- bank and agreed to settle the issue amicably as per the existing O.T.S. Scheme. But, however, as no action has been initiated, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, appearing for the State Bank of India and perused the record. 3. From a perusal of the material available on record and having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since the Tribunal directed the 1st respondent-bank to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the feasibility of applying the O.T.S. Scheme and the petitioner is also willing to pay the entire amount, as per the O.T.S. Scheme, the writ petition can be disposed of with certain directions to the respondent-bank. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-bank to consider the case of the petitioner and give him one more opportunity to pay the entire amount as per the O.T.S. Scheme, which is in force, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not take advantage of the O.T.S. Scheme and fails to pay the amount, it is always left open to the respondent-bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law to recover the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 28th January, 2010 kvr