HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25258 of 2004 Date: March 3, 2011 Between: Kunchala Kondaiah, S/o.K.Narasimham, Hindu, aged about 75 years, Occ:business, R/o.Abhyudayanagar, Addanki, Prakasam District … Petitioner And The Prakasam District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by its General Manager, Ongole, Prakasam District and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in giving benefit under One Time Settlement Scheme to the part of the loan amount of the petitioner without giving the said benefit against the entire loan amount which the petitioner has to pay to the respondent bank as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Bank to the Sub-ordinate Banks for One Time Settlement Scheme for the over dues under non form sector of A.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited/District Cooperative Central Banks and consequently direct the respondents to calculate the benefit under One Time Settlement Scheme against the entire loan amount standing to the credit of the petitioner’s account and make a demand for the payment of due amount without crediting Rs.7.43 lakhs which is the sale amount in E.P.No512/1998-99 to the credit of the respondent bank without giving the benefit of O.T.S. against the said amount and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper.” Petitioner has obtained loan from the respondents- Bank. Being the manager of the joint family properties, he mortgaged the said properties for the purpose of obtaining loan. He committed various defaults in repaying the loan. On a claim made by the respondents- Bank, Award No.4/97-98 was passed on 08-01-1998 against which petitioner preferred appeal in O.A.No.82/1997. Appeal was dismissed on 08-04-2001. Thereafter, against the Award, he filed a writ petition before this court, being W.P.No.14402 of 2001. This Court, in WPMP No.18000 of 2001, granted stay of the Award on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the credit of the Bank; but petitioner has not complied the said condition. Respondents-Bank proceeded with the sale of the properties mortgaged. In the meanwhile, petitioner got filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki and obtained interim injunction; but later injunction application was dismissed. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application in C.D.No.146 of 1998 before the District Consumer Forum and the same also ended in dismissal on 27-01-2003. He filed yet another suit in O.S.No.61 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Addanki to set aside the Award and sought for injunction in I.A.No.332 of 2003 restraining the Bank from proceeding with the execution proceedings. When the same was rejected, he carried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.901 of 2004 which was also dismissed. To enforce the Award, Bank has taken steps and sold one of the mortgaged properties for Rs.7.43 lakhs and the highest bidder in the auction deposited the entire sum and sale was confirmed in her favour. Still, an amount of Rs.5,51,244/- was to be recovered from the petitioner along with further interest. Earlier also, petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.21507 of 2004 seeking directions to intimate him the exact loan amount which was to be paid by him. This Court, by order dated 29-11- 2004, disposed of the said writ petition directing the Bank to intimate the exact loan amount which the petitioner has to pay. In the very same order, this Court made it clear that the said order will not affect the earlier proceedings. Now, by this writ petition, petitioner seeks to declare the action of the respondents in not settling the entire loan amount under One Time Settlement scheme as illegal. When the petitioner, having obtained loan from the Bank, committed defaults in repaying the loan, on a claim made by the respondents-Bank, Award No.4/97-98 was passed on 08-01-1998 against which petitioner preferred appeal in O.A.No.82/1997. Appeal was dismissed on 08-04-2001. Thereafter, against the Award, he filed a writ petition before this court, being W.P.No.14402 of 2001. This Court, in WPMP No.18000 of 2001, granted stay of the Award on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the credit of the Bank; but petitioner has not complied the said condition and the Bank has proceeded to execute the Award passed in their favour. In the execution proceedings, one of the mortgaged properties was sold; highest bidder has deposited entire amount and sale was confirmed in her favour. When the petitioner filed W.P.No.21507 of 2004, claiming that he is entitled for One Time Settlement, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Bank to intimate the amount which the petitioner is entitled to for One Time Settlement. In the said order, this Court clarified that the said order will not affect the sale which was already held. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioner to once again raise such issue stating the One Time Settlement has to be applied to the entire loan amount, but not to the amount which is payable after the auction of one of the mortgaged properties. In any event, it is to be noticed that earlier also, petitioner approached this Court in the year 2004 by way of W.P.No.12726 of 2004 claiming for One Time Settlement and his claim was rejected as is evident from para-5 of the counter-affidavit. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that if any further amount is deposited by the petitioner subsequent to filing of this writ petition, the same shall be given credit to, while settling his loan account. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 3, 2011 MRR