Learned Counsel Dr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, even as the demand notice dated 19/11/1991 of the respondent is under challenge in the present petition, in fact the petitioner has already repaid the entire housing loan availed as an employee from the respondent bank and the bone of contention is only with regard to the interest sought to be charged to the petitioner. It was submitted by Dr. Sinha that the interest sought to be charged from the petitioner was penal in nature while the petitioner had bonafide sought the housing loan from her employer with a view to having a house of her own, while the house owned by her husband was already put up for sale. He, on that basis, submitted that either the Court or the respondent bank was required to take a lenient view of the alleged default or misconduct on the part of the petitioner insofar as the declaration dated 28/12/1999 submitted to the bank for the housing loan was technically incorrect or false on that day.
Learned Counsel Mr. Mehta, appearing for the respondent bank, submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the bank had already taken a lenient view by reducing the punishment and the demand of interest is only at par with any other borrower of the bank. Mr. Mehta further submitted that without consulting and taking instruction from the respondent, he was unable to make any statement or concession in view of the relevant rules and instructions of the bank. However, in view of the prolonged and unjustified pendency of the petition and the petitioner being still an employee of the respondent, the management may consider representation of the petitioner, if it is made restating the grounds for taking lenient view in the matter of charging interest on the housing loan.
Under the circumstances, learned Counsel Dr. Sinha submitted that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner before this Court, the petitioner would prefer to make an appropriate representation before the competent officer of the respondent to finally settle the issue of charging interest on the housing loan availed by the petitioner with a view to maintaining good relations amongst the parties and urge the respondent to exercise their discretion, if any, in the matter of settling the issue pending since long. Accordingly, the petition is disposed as not pressed with a view to making an appropriate representation and with the observation that, if and when a representation is made by the petitioner, the authority at the appropriate level of the respondent may consider the same expeditiously and sympathetically and convey its decision to the petitioner so as to, as far as practicable, finally settle the dispute. With the order and observation as aforesaid, the petition stands disposed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief is vacated.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J) *asma Top