IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19388 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KALADY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.P.V.DIBU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHNY K.C., XI/447, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, THOTTAKAM, MANIYKKAMANGALAM P.O. 3. YACOB B.V., BHARANIKULANGARA HOUSE, THOTTAKAM, MANIYKKAMANGALAM P.O. 4. JOY K.C., KOLENCHERY HOUSE, THOTTAKAM, MANIYKKAMANGALAM P.O. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 19388 of 2007(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19.08.2005 IN ARC.183/2005. EXT .P2 COPY OF THE AFORESAID COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 15.02.2006. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE BANK EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 05.01.2007 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 19388 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Bank challenging the directions issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, by way of Exts.P5 and P6 for consideration of settlement of the loan granted to the 2nd respondent under the One Time Settlement scheme and also directing grant of installments. I am of the view that Exts.P5 and P6 are not subject to judicial review since it merely directs the consideration of the 2nd respondent's loan to be settled under the OTS scheme as per the circular of the Registrar. The Bank could have allowed it or declined it. In any case, Exts.P5 and P6 orders were passed in 2007, and when the case was taken up today, the counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submitted before me that the loan amounts are settled. The counsel for the petitioner Bank would seek time for instructions. However, the counsel for WP(C) NO. 19388 OF 2007 ..2.. the 2nd respondent, the borrower, and respondents 3 & 4 guaranteers having submitted that the entire loan amount is satisfied, I am of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the above writ petition pending. In these circumstances, this writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner Bank to proceed against the respondents 2 to 4 in the event of there being any dues, contrary to the submission made by the counsel for the said respondents. The above writ petition is closed with the above observations. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE bka/-