IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31887 of 2011(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- K.P.RAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. CHATHU, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, PIN - 670 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER), THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 000. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC NO.31887 OF 2011 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.2.2010 IN WP(C) NO.3456/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3 : COPY O THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 31887 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent bank. When he defaulted repayment of the loan the bank took steps to recover the amount due from him. At that stage he filed WP(C) No. 3456 of 2010 in this Court wherein he sought benefits under the One Time Settlement Scheme then in force. Taking note of the submission made on behalf of the first respondent bank, that a One Time Settlement Scheme is in force, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 10.2.2010 with the observation that if the petitioner moves the bank seeking the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme, the bank shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon. It is stated that though pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 20.2.2010, without passing orders on Ext.P3 representation, the second respondent send Ext.P4 letter dated 23.2.2010, stating that the bank is not in a position to allow further time for repayment and calling upon the petitioner to WP(C)No. 31887 of 2011 -2- settle the loan account on or before 15.3.2010. This writ petition was thereupon filed on 29.11.2011, one year and 8 months thereafter seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction , directing the Respondents to extent the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme and permit the petitioner to redeem the liability in 24 equal monthly intstallments. (ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,Order or Direction, directing the 1st respondent to issue a Statement of Account showing the actual balance of loan amount due from the petitioner. 2. It is contended that though during March 2011, a One Time Settlement Scheme was in force, the bank did not extend the benefits thereunder to the petitioner. From a reading of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking the benefit of a One Time Settlement Scheme then in force. This Court directed the bank to consider and extend the benefits thereunder to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon moved the respondent by submitting Ext.P3 representation dated 20.2.2010. The bank thereafter sent Ext.P4 letter dated 23.2.2010 to him informing him that the request for WP(C)No. 31887 of 2011 -3- further time to effect repayment cannot be accepted. Evidently the letter does not refer to the request for the benefit of One Time Settlement but only to the request for further time to repay the loan. The petitioner did not however move this Court or the bank for nearly one year and eight months thereafter. He has now come with a request to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme and to permit him to redeem the liability in 24 equal installments. One Time Settlement means repayment in lump and not in installments. It is evident from the long delay on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court after Ext.P4 letter was received by him, that his intention is to delay repayment of the loan. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a One Time Settlement Scheme is presently in force in the bank and if the petitioner is willing to close the loan by paying the amount due in lump under the said scheme, the bank is prepared to extend the benefits thereunder to him. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner moving the bank in writing by submitting an appropriate representation on or before 31.12.2011, the bank shall consider his entitlements WP(C)No. 31887 of 2011 -4- under the One Time Settlement Scheme, if any presently in force and inform him in writing of the amount which he is liable to pay under the One Time Settlement Scheme and also the last date for payment within ten days from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner shall thereupon pay the amount demanded within the time stipulated by the bank. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not move the bank in the manner indicated above or he fails to remit the amount due from him under the One Time Settlement Scheme within the time stipulated by the bank, it will be open to the bank to take steps to recover the amount due from him in lump. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.