IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5302 of 2009(G) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SREEKRISHNA RUBBERS,MUTHALAMADA.P.O, VIA KOLLENGODU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY RANJITH BOSE(PROPRIETOR). BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)S-67,G.C.D.A, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN-682031. 2. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD,(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REGISTERED OFFICE,NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110020. 3. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD,(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REGIONAL OFFICE AT 615,ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600006. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5302 OF 2009 (G) ==================== Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme is what is under challenge. 2. Petitioner states that he had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent for setting up a Tread Rubber Unit. From the records produced, it would appear that initially petitioner offered to settle the liability by paying Rs.22 lakhs. When he was informed that the amount offered was too low, he revised the offer and offered Rs.16.5 lakhs. That offer was rejected by Ext.P2 and the petitioner was required to make a revised offer. Thereupon, it would appear that the petitioner offered Rs.23 lakhs and that again was rejected by Ext.P3 stating that the offered amount is too low. It is seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P3 and to direct the respondents to accept the OTS offered, the writ petition is filed. 3. As already noticed, the reason for rejection is that the amount offered is too low. Petitioner does not have a case that in terms of any scheme that is in vogue, the amount offered by him satisfies the terms of the scheme and therefore, it should be accepted. In the absence of such a case, this Court will not be justified in deciding on the sufficiency or WPC 5302/09 :2 : otherwise of the offer made by the petitioner, as it is entirely for the respondents to decide on the issue. There is no material to conclude that Exts.P2 and P3 are vitiated by any arbitrariness or perversity. 4. In the result, I am not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp