IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11714 of 2010 RAJESH KUMAR MURARKA S/0 late Subhash Prasad Murarka, resident of East Kapasia Ward No.5, P.S. Nagar, District- Begusarai ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK, Recoveries Section, Recovery Wing, Head Office, Banglore. 2. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Begusarai Branch, K.N. Market Main Road, Begusarai……. Respondents. ------------- For the petitioner: Mr. D.K. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate For the Bank: Mrs. Sheela Sharma,Advocate ----------- 3. 27.9.2010 The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to accept the proposal of the petitioner under O.T.S. Scheme offered by the respondent Bank. It is stated by learned counsel that the petitioner was given a cash credit limit of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.12,00,000/-. The said amount was declared as N.P.A and subsequently the Bank filed O.A. No.72 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The respondent Bank has floated an O.T.S. Scheme in which the last date of receiving application is 30.9.2010. It is stated by learned counsel that the petitioner sought to apply under the said Scheme, but he is not being issued the application form for - 2 - the same. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his case to the issue that the petitioner ought to be permitted to apply under the O.T.S. Scheme and the authorities of the respondent Bank may, thereafter, consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the said Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank opposes the said plea stating that the Bank has instituted a criminal case at Begusarai being Town P.S. Case No.7.2009 dated 7.1.2009 under Sections 467/468/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner has committed a fraud upon the Bank by registering a mortgage with respect to a property which had previously been mortgaged with the Allahabad Bank by deposit of title deeds. Be that as it may, once the O.T.S. Scheme has been floated by the respondent Bank, it is open to any person otherwise covered under the said Scheme to apply under the same and thereafter it is for the - 3 - authorities of the respondent Bank to allow or reject the application on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the O.T.S. Scheme but the respondent authorities can not refuse to accept the O.T.S. application of the petitioner. It is alleged that even when he handed over the proposal form under the same, no receipt was given. In the above circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent Bank to accept the application of the petitioner under the O.T.S. Scheme forthwith and thereafter consider the same in accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the Scheme floated by them. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )