Asharaf C.M vs The Authorized Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 4950 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                     &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
        WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                           WA NO. 557 OF 2022
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10867/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC 10867/2022:

             ASHARAF C.M
             AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O MUSTHAFA,CHITTETHU HOUSE, MANJAPETTY,
             MARAMPALLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683 105

             BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC 10867/2022:

1            THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
             KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
             YATHRI NIVAS, 2ND FLOOR,
             ALUVA-MUNNAR ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542
2            BRANCH MANAGER
             KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
             YATHRI NIVAS, 2ND FLOOR,
             ALUVA-MUNNAR ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542
       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 557 OF 2022
                                    2

                             JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran,J.

Sri.Praveen.K.Joy - learned counsel for

the appellant, submits that his client has

filed this appeal only because he wants to

approach the Bank for a One Time Settlement

(OTS), rather than paying off the entire

amount in instalments, as granted by the

learned Single Judge.

2. Normally, we would not have accepted

this appeal at all, because the learned

Judge has recorded that the appellant had

sought for the relief of the paying off the

outstanding amount in instalments.

3. We, however, asked Smt.Sayoojya -

the learned counsel appearing for the Bank

about this and she affirmed that the

appellant only wanted to pay off the entire WA NO. 557 OF 2022

outstanding amount in instalments at the

time when the impugned judgment was

delivered. She, however, added that if the

appellant withdraws this writ appeal, as

also the writ petition, the Bank can

consider his request, provided the One Time

Settlement facility is still available; but

saying that, to her information, the same

has now been withdrawn or has lapsed.

4. Sri.Praveen K.Joy - learned counsel

for the appellant, however, took the stand

that his client is willing to take the

chance and prayed that the writ petition

itself be allowed to be withdrawn, so that

he can approach the Bank for the benefit of

One Time Settlement.

Resultantly, taking note of the afore

submissions and making it clear that the

judgment of the learned Single Judge is, in WA NO. 557 OF 2022

our view, without error, we allow the

appellant to withdraw this appeal, as also

the writ petition; and consequently, the

judgment in question will stand vacated.

We deem it appropriate to clarify that

we have not spoken on the eligibility of the

appellant to apply for, or to obtain the

benefits under the One Time Settlement, if

any, and that it is to him to approach the

Bank appropriately for such purpose.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE SAS