IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36708 of 2009(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VARKEY C.S., S/O.SCARIA, CHERIYANITHOTTATHIL, CHELAKKOMBU, NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEDUMKONAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, NEDUMKONAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, P & D STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3. IMPLEADED: *3. GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING (SUPERVISION), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/03/2010 IN I.A. NO.3050/2010. R1 & R2 BY MR.R.S.KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36708 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein was a loanee in a medium term loan for an amount of Rs.5.13 lakhs with the State Bank of Travancore, Nedumkonam Branch. The loan was taken for the purchase of brand new vehicle for stage carriage operation. According to the petitioner, he was prompt in repaying the loan amount and so far he had remitted an amount of Rs.9.94 lakhs. Exhibit P3 is the Scheme for granting One Time Settlement benefits. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of the said Scheme to the petitioner. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In a nutshell the contention raised is that the petitioner having failed to comply with the One Time Settlement Scheme sanctioned and granted by the Bank within a stipulated time, the offer was withdrawn after calling upon the petitioner to comply with the One Time Settlement Scheme sanctioned. It is also mentioned W.P.(C) No.36708/2009 2 that the loan was classified as a Non Performing Asset. 3. I am not going to the details of the dispute in the light of the fact that the petitioner now confines his prayer for a consideration of Exhibit P12 by the additional 3rd respondent. Exhibit P12 is the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 19.02.2010 before the additional 3rd respondent. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is seeking for the intervention of the additional 3rd respondent as an independent authority, there will be a direction to the additional 3rd respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P12 after hearing the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2. The same shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the additional 3rd respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp