IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7103 of 2007 Between: B.Athawullah, s/o B.Ibrahim Saheb, r/o 1/1908, Laxmipet, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to Co.operative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar of Co.op.Societies, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Yemmiganur Co.operative Town Bank Ltd., No.Y.396, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District represented by its Joint Collector (Person-in-charge). 4 The Yemmiganur Co.operative Town Bank Ltd., No.Y-396, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District represented by its secretary. 5 The Deputy Registrar of Co.op.Societies, Adoni, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues pending with the bank by way of One Time Settlement scheme by implementing the resolution dated 21-2-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articloe 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues pending with the bank by way of one time settlement by implementing the resolution dated 21-2-2004 passed by the 3rd respondent and to pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 7103 of 2007 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues payable by him to the 4th respondent-Bank under one time settlement, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues payable by him to the 4th respondent-Bank under one time settlement by implementing the resolution dated 21.02.2004 passed by the 3rd respondent-Bank. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent-Bank stating that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 27.07.1995 for the purpose of business by mortgaging his house bearing Door No. 5/546/2. As the petitioner did not repay the loan amount, the 4th respondent-Bank was constrained to move the 5th respondent, who issued Certificate under Section 71(1) of the A.P.C.S. Act, for recovery of the loan amount due from the petitioner. Pursuant to introduction of One Time Settlement Scheme, a notice was issued to the petitioner requesting him to clear the dues by availing the benefit under One Time Settlement by remitting 1/4th of the amount settled under OTS Scheme on or before 31.03.2004, but he has not availed the said opportunity. The petitioner having not availed the said benefit, cannot complain that no opportunity was given to him by the 4th respondent-Bank to settle the dues under the One Time Settlement. It is stated that the One Time Settlement has been floated on the basis of the guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India, and the 4th respondent-Bank has no discretion to extend the scheme, much less to accommodate the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had availed loan of Rs.15,000/- from the 4th respondent-Bank, so far he repaid an amount of Rs.22,910/-, and since the petitioner had paid two times over and above the amount borrowed by him, the 4th respondent-Bank be directed to close the loan account. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Bank. Whether the petitioner has paid the entire loan amount or not, whether the rate of interest charged by the 4th respondent-Bank is very high, and if so, what is the reasonable rate of interest they have to charge, are all matters which arise out of loan transactions between the parties. This apart, they are disputed questions of fact, which having regard to the settled law, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and further in such matters, this Court can neither compel the 4th respondent-Bank to accept the offer made by the petitioner for closure of the loan account under one time settlement nor can it direct the 4th respondent-Bank to close the loan account taking into consideration the amounts already paid by the petitioner, which is said to be two times over and above the loan amount borrowed. Be that as it may, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Bank, on instructions, submits that now the respondents have taken up the issue and are going to consider for waiving of the interest. If that be so, the 4th respondent-Bank is at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 31.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr