IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6212 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.ABDHUL LATHEEF, PROPRIETOR, PARAGOD CASHEW COMPANY, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 48/1013 NEAR THIRUVALLOM BRIDGE, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHYLA, W/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 48/1013 NEAR THIRUVALLOM BRIDGE, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 6212 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 proposal for the benefit of One Time Settlement and for such other reliefs. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that the amount is due right from the year 1991 and that the petitioner turned to be a chronic defaulter, making the liability to cross the total sum of more than 60 lakhs. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, it is now pending consideration before the Recovery Officer. In the said circumstance, the respondent Bank is stated as not in a position to pass orders on Ext.P1 under any circumstance. 3. Taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that the petitioner shall either approach the Recovery Officer or the DRT challenging the proceedings taken at the instance of the respondent for realisation of the due amount. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, to pursue such other appropriate remedy. WP(C) No.6212/2010 2 Accordingly, permission is granted and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving the rights and liberties as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc