IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 178 of 2007()
1. THE KAVIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.SADASIVAN, MEMBER NO.2456,
... Respondent
2. AJESH KUMAR, MEMBER NO.5850,
3. K.R.RADHAMMA, MAMBER NO.969,
4. ROSHINI AJESH, MEMBER NO.6838,
5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
6. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
7. THE SALE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 178 OF 2007-C
-----------------------------------------
Dated 2nd February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition.
Respondents 1 to 4 were the writ petitioners. All of them have availed loans
from the appellant Bank. Since they defaulted to pay the amounts due to the
Bank in time, the Bank moved and obtained Ext.P1 series awards against
them. When coercive steps were taken, respondents 1 to 4 moved the
Bank, claiming the benefit of one-time settlement scheme in force at the
relevant time. According to the appellant Bank, the said repondents were
granted the benefit pursuant to the representations filed by them, copies of
which are produced as Exts.R3(a) to R3(d) in the writ petition. But, they
failed to remit the amounts due to the Bank in time. So, the said offer of
settlement as per the one-time settlement scheme lapsed.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 claimed the benefit of Exts.P2,P3 and P12
circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned
WA 178/2007 2
Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellant to grant
the benefit of those three circulars. This appeal is filed, mainly, challenging
the direction to grant the benefit of Exts.P2 and P3 circulars, for the reason
that the said schemes expired long ago. The respondents 1 to 4 are not
entitled to get the benefit of those schemes, which have already expired, it
is submitted.
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official
respondents also. We find considerable force in the submission of the Bank.
If the Bank does not extend the benefit of an existing scheme for one-time
settlement, the loanees concerned may have a grievance. In this case, their
prayer was to extend the benefit of two schemes, which have already
expired. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent
it directs the Bank to extend the benefit of Exts.P2 and P3 circulars to
respondents 1 to 4 is set aside.
The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
nm/