HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1604 of2002 PETITIONERS : 1. M/s. Lakhe Rice Mills, Kosmandi, P.O. Kosmandi, Block — Pallari, Tehsil Baloda Bagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri Vilas Lakhe, S/o Balkrishan Rao Lakhe, aged about 52 years, Occupation: Business. 3. Smt. Vishakha Lakhe W/o Vilas Lakhe, aged about 48 years, Occupation: business. (2 & 3 R/o Civil Lines, Opposite Tahsildar Bungaiow, Tehsil: Baloda Bazar, Distt. ~— Raipur) 4. Shri Tulsi Ram Verma, S/o Dukhuram Vetma, aged about 6O years, Occupation: Agicuitiffist, Kosmandi P O Amera, Tehsil' Baloda, Distt — Ralpur (C G ) . Shn Padmakar Lakhe S/o Tnmbak Rao Lakhe aged about 65 Years Occupation Agricultunst Kosmandi Block: Pallari, Tehsii: Baloda Bazar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State Bank of India, through its Chairman and Managing Director Central 0&icer Mumbai 2. Assmtant general manager State Bank of ludia, Raipui 3. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Oifiee Raipur (C G ) 4. Branch Manager State Bank of Indla, Baloda Bazar and Distt Raipur (C G ) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21$ day of November, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the petition was filed, the dispute with regard to recovery ofthe loan amount was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Despite pendency ofthe same dispute, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to. settle the ease under ‘one-time-settlement’ scheme ofthe Reserve Bank of India, in accordance with law. Wm ww “WWWm *7" The petitioners flled an application before the respondents-bank for considering their cases but the respondéms, by order dated 4.2.2002, rejected the application of the petitioners. The petitioners have not chosen of the order dated 04.02.2002, in this Court or to question the legality before any other forum. The second petition for the same relief which was pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not maintainable in this case. The petitioner has also not challenged the alleged . order byxwhich f?” the petitioner is aggrieve . . No order . as to costs. om I atish K Agmh W d Thus, this petition is dismissed as having no merit. / sd . i l \