The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the accounts regarding the payments of amounts by the 1st petitioner as well as the amounts recovered from the four sureties of the 1st petitioner, towards the repayment of the 1st petitioner's loan, with the 2nd respondent Bank;
ii) to direct the 1st respondent, Corporation to furnish the true and correct statement regarding the recoveries effected from the salary of the 2nd petitioner and paid at the 2nd respondent Bank in the loan account of the 1st petitioner;
iii) to direct the 2nd respondent not to charge usurious interest at 21%; not to charge interest at compounded rates and also not to charge penal interest;
iv) to direct the 2nd respondent to give the full benefit of the 'One Time Settlement' Scheme, and if any excess amount is paid, direct the return of the same to the 1st petitioner;
v) to direct the 2nd respondent not to take any steps for forceful recovery of the amounts, until the accounts are settled in accordance with the existing norms for settling the defaulted loans and other payments, applicable to banks;
W.P. (C) NO. 38385 of 2003 (T) 2
v) to pass any other and such orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case."
When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 9/12/2003 the following interim order was passed.
"Urgent notice.
There will be a direction to the first respondent to remit the amount recovered from the second petitioner's salary before the second respondent with same rate of interest at which interest is charged on the first petitioner by the Bank for the delayed payment after one week from date of recovery from second petitioner's salary. If the Corporation has authorised retention of the recovered amount, interest will be paid by the Corporation or otherwise it will be recovered from the Disbursing Officer. The payment of interest will be made along with the recovered amounts within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to be produced by the petitioners before the first respondent.
Post in the second week of January,2004. Hand over."
This was followed by another interim order on 18/12/2012 in the following terms.
"Sri.P.K.Soyuz, learned standing counsel for the Cochin Corporation, takes notice for the first respondent.
Service complete.
W.P. (C) NO. 38385 of 2003 (T) 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners to service a copy of the writ petition, complete in all aspects, on the learned standing counsel for the Cochin Corporation, within a week from today.
Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his copy of the writ petition has been lost and misplaced.
Registry is directed ti issue a certified copy of the writ petition, if applied for, within two days from the date of receipt of the application.
Post on 7/1/2013."
Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that, the entire amount payable to the second respondent has already been remitted and the account has been closed. There is no representation for the petitioners. It appears that, the petitioner has no more subsisting grievance. In the said circumstances, no further orders are warranted.
The writ petition is closed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE AS