IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.24037-24039 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K.R. NAGALAKSHMI W/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. GURUPRASAD C.N.
S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3. NAVEEN KUMAR C.N.
S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.21, 4TH CROSS LAKE SHORE GARDEN, NEAR THINDLU VIDYARANAYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 097.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. M.S. VENUGOPAL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER CORPORATION BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, NO.8 NITESH TIME SQUARE 5TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE, NO.1/1 GROUND FLOOR, "JEEVAN SAMPIGE" 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER CORPORATION BANK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BRANCH NO.99, GROUND FLOOR 1ST MAIN ROAD, HIG A SECTOR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 064.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADV., FOR R1 & R3) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER DTD:14.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANENXURE-Q IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT OF RS.6,25,000/- FROM NABARD AS A PART OF ONE TIME STTELEMNT PAYMENT & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. M.S.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petitions, the petitioners has prayed for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the communication/letter dated 14.01.2016 bearing No.OR/KR/YNT/0154/2015-16 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-Q in so far as it relates to refusing to consider the subsidy amount of Rs.6,25,000/- from NABARD as a part of One time settlement payment.
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondents to cancel the One time settlement offer as reflected in the e mail communication dated 4.3.2016 between respondent No.2 and 3 which is served on the petitioners on 14.3.2016 vide Annexure-V.
iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the subsidy amount of Rs.6,25,000/- received from NABARD as a part of One time settlement payment and settle the account of the petitioners under the One time settlement scheme.
OR i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept the payment of a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- towards full and final settlement of loan account in terms of one time settlement offer by extending the time for payment.
ii) Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing this petition in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.01.2018 and has submitted that the competent authority of the Bank be directed to decide their representation submitted by the petitioners by a speaking order in the light of the order passed by this Court on 16.01.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents bank fairly submitted that the representation filed by the petitioners shall be dealt in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondent-Bank to decide their representation submitted by the by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today in the light of the order dated 16.01.2018.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS