IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2018 (GM-RES) Between:
Smt.Yashoda, Wife of Y.Ramesh, Aged about 31 years, Residing at Yelanadu Village, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 302. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Fayaz Sab.B.G, Advocate) And :
1. The Regional Manager, Kaveri Grameena Bank, Regional Office at 6th Cross, Sadashivanagara, Tumakuru-572 102.
2. The Branch Manager, Kaveri Grameena Bank, Branch Office: Yelanadu Branch, Near Bus Stand, Yelanadu, Huliyur Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 302.
3. The Authorised Officer, Kaveri Grameena Bank, Regional Office at 6th Cross, Sadashivanagara, Tumakuru-572 102. ... Respondents (By Sri.T.S.Mahabaleshwara, Advocate for R1-R3-Absent) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order of issuance of public auction sale notice on 11.12.2017, wherein the respondents bank is contemplating to conduct public auction sale on 17.1.2018 at 3.30 p.m to auction the schedule property at Annex-E as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, without application of mind and etc., - - -
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Fayaz Sab B.G., learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents. Perused the record.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter-alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i) To quash the impugned order of issuance of public auction sale notice on 11.12.2017, wherein the respondents Bank is contemplating to conduct public auction sale on 17.01.2018 at 3.30 p.m. to auction the schedule property, which is produced and marked as Annexure-E as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, without application of mind, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, in the nature of order / direction directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for One Time Settlement (OTS) after weighing off the interest and penal interest, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) To, grant, any such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had submitted proposal under the one time settlement scheme and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority of the respondent – Bank to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner under the one time settlement scheme.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority of the respondent – Bank, to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner, if not already considered, by a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB