IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16646 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.SUNDARESAN PILLAI, S.S.BHAVAN, PERINAD, EDAVATTAM, KOLLAM. 2. SUSHAMA KUMARI, D/O.SUNDARESAN PILLAI, S.S.BHAVAN, PERINAD, EDAVATTAM, KOLLAM. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SUNDARESAN PILLAI, S.S.BHAVAN, PERINAD, EDAVATTAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE VELIMON SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.2355, VELIMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VELIMON SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.2355, VELIMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16646 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 8.12.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.(C) NO.38748 OF 2010 DATED 5.1.2011 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16646 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners availed loans from the second respondent bank. When they did not repay the loan, the bank filed arbitration cases before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kollam. After notice to the petitioners, the Arbitrator passed awards holding the petitioners liable to pay various amounts. The petitioners did not even thereafter pay the amount covered by the awards. The bank thereupon initiated steps to execute the awards. The petitioners herein along with two others filed W.P.(C) No.38748 of 2010 in this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to settle the loan account under the one time settlement scheme. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 5.1.2011, the said writ petition was dismissed holding that the existence of a one time settlement scheme has not been pleaded or proved. This writ petition is thereafter filed by petitioners 2, 3 and 4 therein seeking the following reliefs:- i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant 20 instalments to pay entire dues of the petitioners and to clear the loan account. ii) issue a appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd respondent to give necessary direction to the first respondent to settle the loan account of the petitioners by providing maximum reduction including the waiver of penal interest, collection charges and surcharge and other incidental costs considering the peculiar facts and W.P.(C) No.16646 of 2011 2 circumstances of the case. iii) issue such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem just and fit in the circumstance of the case. 2. It is contended that though after Ext.P2 judgment was delivered, petitioners 1 and 5 therein remitted award amount, the petitioners herein could not deposit the award amounts for want of funds and therefore the bank has taken steps to sell the property belonging to them. It is on these allegations that the instant writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The awards against the petitioners have become final. Under the terms of the award, the decree holder is entitled to proceed against the petitioners for realisation of the award amount. Apart from stating that though the third petitioner approached the bank seeking instalment facility, no action was taken by the bank, the petitioners have not produced any cogent material in support of the said submission. It is not known whether the request for instalment facility was made orally or in writing. That apart, by Circular No.63 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had extended certain concessions and benefits to persons who had availed loans from co-operative institutions. The said scheme was in force till 31.3.2011. The petitioners could have availed the said benefit if they W.P.(C) No.16646 of 2011 3 were desirous of discharging the debt. Such being the situation, as the petitioners have not approached the first respondent seeking the benefit of one time settlement that was in force till 31.3.2011 and also have not approached the bank thereafter for an opportunity to pay the amount in instalments, this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot step into and direct the decree holder to permit the petitioners to pay the award amount in instalments. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.