Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are in the following terms;
“i) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get Ext.P20 considered and maximum benefits extended to him and that the proceedings against the security properties, including the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P21, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 are wrong and illegal.
ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to call for all records leading up to Ext.P21 and quash the proceedings against him under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 5 to consider Ext.P20 and to extent maximum benefits to the petitioner to pay off his liabilities.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents 2 to 6 restraining them from proceeding any further on Exts.P21 and dispossessing the petitioner from his properties, before considering and disposing of Ext.P20.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the WP(c). No. 29964 of 2014 2 petitioner would confine the relief, for causing Ext.P20 representation dated 08.10.2014 to be considered and finalised within a reasonable time. The request sought for in the said representation is in the following terms.
“Considering all the facts stated above I may be permitted to pay Rs.35 lakhs, to be raised by way of sale of the security property and otherwise, as full and final satisfaction of the entire loan and you may release the charge over the property and return the title deeds in respect of the same by fully and finally settling the loan account.”
3. The relief sought for is vehemently opposed by the respondent Bank pointing out that, the proposal to liquidate the liability by raising funds by 'sale of the secured property', is not liable to be entertained. The learned counsel also brings it to the notice of this Court from the materials on record and also on the basis of instructions that, it is the third round of litigation that the petitioner is pursuing before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 24804 of 2011 claiming the benefit of 'One Time Settlement Scheme' and also against declaration of the account as 'NPA'. The case projected by the petitioner was found as untenable and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 07.03.2013. After a series of communications, the WP(c). No. 29964 of 2014 3 petitioner approached this Court again, challenging the steps taken under the SARFAESI Act and as per Ext.P16 judgment dated 28.03.2014 in WP(C) No.8888/2014, the petitioner was permitted to liquidate the entire liability by way of monthly instalments at the rate of Rupees 10 lakhs each, commencing from 20th of April 2014. It is pointed out that, not even a single instalment has been satisfied by the petitioner so far. Now, the petitioner has filed Ext.P20 representation and has rushed to this Court for further indulgence. The learned counsel also points out that, the total outstanding liability as on date is nearly Rupees 75 lakhs and that the Bank had extended the facility of OTS to the petitioner as early as in the year 2011, to have the entire liability liquidated on payment of Rs.50 lakhs, which facility was not availed by the petitioner.
4. After hearing both the sides this Court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and none of the grounds raised in support of the same could be held as tenable.
Accordingly interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn