The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.12993 of 2002 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in fixing the cut off date for finalizing the petitioner’s loan account under one time settlement scheme and to set aside auction notice issued in E.P.No.205/98-99 demanding an amount of Rs.2,98,519/- with interest @ 22.5% from 01-05-2002 from the petitioner. Petitioner availed cash credit facility of Rs.1 lakh for his business purposes on 1st August, 1995 from respondent No.5-Yemmiganur Co-operative Town Bank Limited, which is a society registered under the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act and also a licensee under the Banking Regulation Act. As the petitioner did not repay the said amount, respondent No.5- Bank has initiated the steps for recovery of the outstanding loan amount of Rs.94,016/- and further accrued interest from 31st March, 2001 and issued Form No.9 Notice under Rule 52 (11) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’), attaching certain immovable properties of the petitioner for realization of the amount due from the petitioner. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to settle his loan account under One Time Settlement scheme before issuance of the Form-9 Notice. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the One Time Settlement Scheme was introduced and guidelines for implementation of the same were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.70 Agricultural and Cooperation (COOP.VI) Department, dated 22nd February, 2002, the said facility is not extended to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the respondent No.5 is following the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and after instructions were issued by the Reserve Bank of India, respondent No.5 has implemented the One Time Settlement Scheme from August, 2002 to 30th March, 2004. It is further stated that, the petitioner neither utilized the scheme nor complied with the condition of depositing 30% of the E.P. amount as directed by this Court vide WPMP.No.16141 of 2002, dated 19-07-2002. Perused the entire material available on record. In this case, it is to be noted that the One Time Settlement Scheme itself was introduced in respondent No.5-Bank from August, 2002 and closed on 30th March, 2004. However, petitioner did not make use of the same and rushed to this Court during July, 2002, questioning the cut off date. That apart, the petitioner obtained the loan in the year 1995 and on his failure to repay the same, steps for recovery were initiated and after obtaining award from the competent authority only, impugned notice under Rule 52 of the Rules was issued in the execution proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in issuance of the impugned notice in execution proceedings. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed granting the petitioner three months time from today to repay the loan amount. However, it is made clear that if any scheme is notified in the meantime for settling the loan amount, it is open to the petitioner to file his application therefor. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 13th November, 2009 lur