IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31676 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (TADCOS LTD. NO.T.412), KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAN, PEROTTUKONAM, NALACHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of 'OTS' and settle the loan account on remitting Rs.10 lakhs in respect of the loan transactions 2. The factual position is such that a loan of Rs.17.4. lakhs was availed by the petitioner from the respondents in the year 2001, but was not much interested to have it repaid on time, under which circumstance, the amount due to the respondent Bank got mounted up. In the meanwhile, the bus purchased by the petitioner utilizing the loan amount also happened to be seized and sold, realizing a sum of Rs 10 lakhs and the same was given credit to, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, with specific reference to the statement filed in the matter. The learned counsel further submits that as on W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009 2 31.10.2009, the outstanding liability crossed Rs.29 lakhs with further interest and cost, as still due. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, referring to the contents of paragraph No.6 of the statement, that the revised offer made by the petitioner to have the benefit of OTS was 17.5 lakhs (as put forth on 08.09.2009), whereupon, the Branch office conveyed it to the petitioner that the case could be forwarded to the Head Office only if the petitioner agreed to satisfy a minimum sum of Rs. 23.56 lakhs. It is also stated therein that the petitioner did not choose to respond to the letter dated 14.09.2009. It has been further stated that the respondent Corporation is ready and willing to settle the account even at this stage, if the petitioner approaches the Corporation with a 'reasonable offer' within the approved norms under the Compromise Settlement Scheme. 3. In response to the letter dated 14.09.2009, the petitioner has made a revised offer to an extent of 'Rs.12 lakhs', which is an instance of abusing the process and the steps taken by the respondents, submits the learned Counsel for the respondents, with specific reference to the earlier proposal as W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009 3 revised and offered by the petitioner Society on 08.09.2009 agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 17.5 lakhs. 4. In view of the above undisputed facts and figures, this Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to extend any relief to the petitioner . The Writ Petition fails, interference is declined and it is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that this will not bar the way of the petitioner in approaching the respondents for appropriate reliefs, to the extent they are agreeable. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk