IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15959 OF 2003 Dt.22.12.2009 Between: Kum. P. Sailaja … Petitioner And State Bank of Hyderabad Rep. by its Assistant General Manager Regional Office, Khammam. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15959 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the petitioner’s application dt.29.3.2003 under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, as per the revised Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines dt.29.1.2003, as illegal. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Srinivasa Talkies, Wyra, Khammam District. The partnership firm has obtained a loan of sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in the year 1982. An equitable mortgage was created in respect of Ac.25.07 gts., Ac.2.11 gts., Ac.5.14 and Acs.5.00 of lands situated at various places. Another extent of 1800 sq. yards of land in Ward No.5 of Wyra Village was also given as security for discharge of the loan amount. As the firm committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondents filed O.S.No.25 of 1990, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, for recovery of the said amount. The suit was decreed on 31.3.2001. A.S.No.2481 of 2001, filed against the said judgment and decree, was partly allowed by modifying the part of the decree pertaining to interest vide judgment dt.12.12.2001. E.P. No.46 of 2002 was filed for recovery of the sum of Rs.34,00,038/-. In the meantime, the RBI issued revised guidelines for settlement of dues in respect of chronic non-performing assets vide its proceedings dt.29.01.2003. The petitioner applied to the respondents for settling the dues under the said Scheme. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition alleging that one of its applications filed on 29.3.2003 is not being considered and disposed of. A counter affidavit is filed by the Branch Manager of respondent No.1. It is stated inter alia that though the loan transaction is of the year 1982, the judgment debtors (JDRs) have not paid any amount and that the petitioner (JDR 6) and two others (JDRs 3 and 5) have filed E.A. No.35 of 2003 to permit them to withdraw their shares out of the lease amounts deposited by the receiver without satisfying the decree. The learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the said application on 4.8.2003. The petitioner made application dt.30.6.2001 for the OTS Scheme and that the same was considered and rejected by respondent No.1 – Bank vide its letter dt.6.8.2001 on the ground that the OTS scheme is not applicable to wilful defaulters such as the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was advised to submit an application for general terms of compromise along with the firm and other partners. The petitioner, however, submitted another application on 29.3.2003 for extension of the OTS scheme. The said application was considered and a reply was given on 19.4.2003 by respondent No.2 wherein it was stated that the application shall be signed by the firm and all other partners and that the petitioner made the application without making any offer of settlement. The bank, however, assured that if the firm and all the partners make an offer of Rs.32,40,000/- the same will be considered favourably, if such an offer reaches the Bank within ten days. It is further averred that in spite of the said reply, no offer has been made. Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The undisputed position is that the firm and the petitioner suffered a decree under which the respondents are entitled to recover the decretal amount. The OTS Scheme is envisaged subject to several conditions. Unless a person satisfies all those conditions, he will not have any vested right to force the respondents to agree for such settlement. The respondents have taken a specific plea that the application dt.29.3.2002 submitted by the petitioner was duly replied to. No reply has been filed by the petitioner denying this plea of the respondents. In the face of this uncontroverted fact, the petitioner cannot claim that her application for OTS has not been considered by the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any reason to direct the respondents to take further action on the petitioner’s application. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that certain amounts have already been recovered from the firm and that the E.P., which was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, has been closed on 24.1.2008. In view of the above facts, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.19775 of 2003, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22.12.2009 bnr