IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18748 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.M.KURIAKOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, CHEMPAKATHINAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., THOUDUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 582. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION (B), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM PIN – 695 001. 3. THE ASSIST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GEN.), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584. 4. THODUPUZHA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEV.BANK LTD. THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DIST., REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY-PIN – 685 584. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18748 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed four different loans from the 4th respondent bank. Due to financial difficulties, repayment of the loans were defaulted. Therefore, the bank initiated action for recovery of the amounts. Thereafter, execution proceedings followed and the petitioner was under pressure to pay the amounts demanded. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to the benefits of the one time settlement scheme that was introduced by the Government of Kerala. As per the scheme, the petitioner should have been given waiver of interest and penal interest. Therefore, the petitioner approached the bank for the benefits under the said scheme. The petitioner was asked to remit an amount of Rs.5,57,860/- for closing the entire loan. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted the amount that was demanded by the bank and closed his account on 12.4.2004. According to the petitioner, the scheme was available till 31.7.2004. wpc No.18748/2010 2 Therefore, the petitioner should have been given the benefit of the same. However, according to the petitioner, he was not given any of the benefits under the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government. As per Ext.P10, a direction was issued by the Government to the bank for exploring the possibility of granting the benefits of the said scheme to the petitioner. However, the date mentioned in Ext.P10 is wrong. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 representation to the first respondent on 1.1.2010. However, the petitioner complains that no orders have been passed on Ext.P11 till date. He, therefore, prays for the issue of a direction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 without further delay. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also. Having considered the contentions of the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is wpc No.18748/2010 3 disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to therein, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the authority for compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/