The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) Call for records leading to issuance of Exhibits P-2 and may quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to issue statement of accounts of loan accounts under Exhibit P1 and thereafter allow the petitioners a time of six months to pay the arrears as per those statements to regularize the loan accounts or else to allow this petitioner a time of twelve months to close the said accounts by paying in Equal Monthly Installments starting from December of this year.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 21.10.2014, the following order was passed:
“The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has filed a statement showing the particulars of the different loan transactions as per which a sum of more than Rupees Twenty Six lakhs is overdue in respect of the defaulted instalments. It is also pointed out that the coercive proceedings were stopped on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioners on 07.04.2014, WP(c). No. 26665 of 2014 2 and subsequently on 18.09.2014 and lastly on 07.10.2014, promising to remit a sum of Rupees Ten lakhs forthwith and another sum of Rupees Fifty Lakhs on or before 11.10.2014.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners has have deposited a sum of Rupees One lakh yesterday and Rupees Three lakhs today and that steps are being taken to effect further deposits immediately.
The petitioners are required to satisfy a sum of Rupees Six lakhs on or before 30.10.2014.
List the matter for further consideration on 04.11.2014.”
3. The condition imposed by this Court was not satisfied in spite of the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners and still, considering the persuasive submissions made on behalf of the petitioners by the learned lawyer, time was extended further, as per order dated 04.11.2014, and the petitioners were directed to satisfy a sum of `6,00,000/- on or before 30.10.2014.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, the petitioners have simply taken this Court for a ride and the commitment made has not been honoured so far. Reference is also made to the contents of the statement dated 17.10.2014, particularly as to the lapses and failure on the part of the petitioners.
WP(c). No. 26665 of 2014 3
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn