HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25086 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the sureties of the petitioner, namely; (1) Tallapalli Ramulu, S/o. Rajamallu, General Mazdoor, EC 2098449, Goleti-I Incline and (2) Gandra Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Linga Rao, Coal Filler, EC 2077150, Goleti – I Incline for recovery of loan amount of the petitioner from the salary of the above said sureties till the application dated 13.12.2004 filed by the petitioner for One Time Settlement is disposed of by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has obtained loan of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the Bellampally Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. For the purpose of securing the loan amount, the aforementioned two persons, stood as sureties. When the said loan amounts were not repaid by the petitioner, respondents initiated steps for recovering the same by attaching the salaries of the persons, who stood as sureties. The petitioner herein also submitted an application on 13.12.2004, requesting the bank to settle the accounts of the petitioner under the One Time Settlement Scheme (O.T.S.). The grievance of the petitioner is that when once the petitioner has already pleaded for settlement of loan account under O.T.S. Scheme by way an application, dated 23.12.2004, there is no justification or reason for not acting upon the said representation. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, counter affidavit is filed. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that inasmuch as the loan is a personal loan, O.T.S. Scheme is not applicable to the said loan. As evident from the counter affidavit, since the loan is a personal loan, the facility of O.T.S. Scheme cannot be extended to the loan account of the petitioner. Hence, no direction can be given as sought for by the petitioner. However, it is to be noticed that out of Rs. 25,000/-, the petitioner has paid Rs. 8,000/- at one point of time and pursuant to the order of this Court, he has paid another sum of Rs.15,000/-. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount within a period of three months from today. However, it is made clear that if any further schemes are notified by the Government, this order will not preclude the petitioner from availing the benefits notified under the said schemes. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 3rd March, 2011 pnb