1. Petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of relief under Ext.P2 scheme which was a scheme introduced by the Government in 2012. In fact, the petitioner was issued with a statement showing the relief under the scheme as is evidenced by Ext.P3. Petitioner, further, contends that the computation is wrong and invite this Court to either look at the computation or direct consideration of Ext.P5. Ext.P5, admittedly, is a dispute raised with respect to the computation before the bank itself.
2. The scheme of 2012 is no more in operation. If the petitioner had any dispute with respect to the computation, the petitioner should have remitted the money as per Ext.P3 and then approached the appropriate forum. In any event, Article 226 cannot be invoked to W.P.(C)No.19738 of 2012 -:2:-
look at the computation in a loan account. Ext.P5 also cannot be directed to be considered. since the petitioner has failed to remit the amount as per the terms of settlement offered. At this point of time, the scheme is not applicable and the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief under the scheme.
3. Considering the confined prayer made for instalments, it is directed that the sale of the mortgaged property shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner settling the entire loan in ten equal monthly instalments. The respondent-Bank shall quantify the dues as on 30.11.2014 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on 13.12.2014 and thereafter; on the due date of instalments falling on the 15th of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the W.P.(C)No.19738 of 2012 -:3:-
Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 30.11.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 9th instalment.
The writ petition stands disposed of as above. No costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.