IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.16529-16533 OF 2019 & W.P.NOS.17923-17924 of 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S ESHWAR AGRO INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI.K.ATHMANANDA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT KALLAHALLI, M.C.ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
2. SHRI.K.ATHMANANDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT KALLAHALLI, M.C.ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
AND ALSO AT:
NO.1769, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA-571 401.
3. SHRI.K.ATHAMANANDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, INDUVALU VILLAGE, B.M.ROAD, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA-571 401.
4. SRI.K.GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, NO.1769, SECOND CROSS, KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401.
5. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, NO.1769, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA- 571 401.
6. K.BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, NO.1769, SECOND CROSS, KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA- 571 401.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA.M, ADV. FOR M.A.RAJENDRA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE GOVERNOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NEW CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, NO.1978 AND 1978/1, KEMPAIAH BUILDING, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NO.1978 AND 1978/1, KEMPAIAH BUILDING, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R2-4; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO SETTLE THEIR ENTIRE DUES UNDER APPLICABLE OTS SCHEME SBI OTS-2017; SIB OTS-2018 OR AS APPLICABLE UNDER A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE, BASED ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT 2016 OR 2017, AS THE CASE MAY BE WITHOUT ANY DISCRETIONS AND DISCRIMINATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO CONSIDER THEIR REQUEST LETTER DATED 10.04.2019-ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel for Sri. M. A. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.1.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus to respondent- Bank to settle their entire dues under applicable OTS scheme SBI OTS-2017; SBI OTS-2018 or as applicable under a given circumstance, based on the classification of the account 2016 or 2017, as the case may be without any discretions and discrimination, in accordance with law and to consider their request letter dated 10.04.2019 vide Annexure-A.
3. When these matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these petitions be disposed of with a direction to respondent-Bank to consider the petitioners request letter dated 10.04.2019 vide Annexure-A to settle their entire dues under applicable OTS scheme SBI OTS-2017; SBI OTS-2018 or as applicable under a given circumstance, based on the classification of the account 2016 or 2017, as the case may be without any discretions and discrimination, in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 fairly submitted that in case such a request letter is not already decided, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the offer of the petitioners to settle their entire dues under the ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme submitted by them, if not already decided within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-