IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24244 OF 2015 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN:
SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED S/O ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PROP:M/S GULNAZ SILK, REELING INDUSTRIES, KH.NO.280/250/B, B-II, CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125. (By SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V. K, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, (SILK) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, NO.271/1, 2ND FLOOR, YESHODHA COMPLEX, B.B.ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR NO.271/1, YESHODHA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, B. B. ROAD, … PETITIONER CHICKBALLAPURA - 562 101.
… RESPONDENTS (By SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER / ORDER DATED 30.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE R2 KSFC VIDE ANN-C, AS ILLEGAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC AUCTION NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES MENTIONED THEREIN, IN THE NOTICE DATED 27.5.2015 AT ANN-E ISSUED BY THE R3 AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Narayana Swamy V.K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.04.2015 at Annexure-B and extend the benefit of the Government Order/Guidelines of the RBI to the petitioner by giving waiver of interest due on principal amount, after adjusting the amount already paid, keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the Government Order to enable the petitioner to discharge the same as one time settlement.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation for settlement of the loan account under the ‘One Time Settlement’ Scheme may be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly submitted that in case such a representation 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, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. With regard to other relief, which has been claimed by the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under law.
7. Till the representation filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, ad-interim order dated 11.06.2015 granted by a bench of this Court, shall continue.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-