AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 866 of 2022 on 12.05.2022, whereby the appellants’ Writ Petition has been dismissed.
The appellants have preferred the said Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to the respondent nos. 4 and 5, i.e. the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Garhwal Circle, New Road, Dehradun, and the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, to hear the appellants, and complete the O.T.S. proceedings after adjusting the already paid amount to the respondent no. 4/ bank. Consequential reliefs were also sought by the appellants.
The appellants had earlier preferred a Writ Petition, wherein they had sought subsidy from the respondent/ bank. That Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 08 of 2022, was disposed of on 06.01.2022, with a liberty to the appellants herein to make a representation to the District Tourism Development Officer, Pauri Garhwal. It was directed that, if they make the representation within ten days, the matter shall be placed before the concerned Committee, who shall take a decision as early as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
The case of the appellants, in the Writ Petition, was that on the representation, the Committee consisting of nine officers, which met on 25.03.2022, took a decision that if the appellants make a One Time Settlement offer, the same should be considered by the Branch Officer, according to procedure, and should be placed before the Regional Manager and the Board of the 2 respondent/ bank for consideration. The appellants contended that, despite the said decision, their proposal for One Time Settlement was not considered by the respondent/ bank, and, consequently, they preferred the said Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition was contested by the respondent/ bank. The stand of the respondent/ bank - which is also to be noticed in the impugned judgment, was that there was no O.T.S. scheme in vogue after 31.01.2022. The decision relied upon by the appellants, of the Committee, was of a non-statutory Committee, and was, therefore, not binding on the respondent/ bank.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on 28.06.2021, the respondent/ bank had come up with an O.T.S. scheme, which was valid from 01.07.2021 to 31.01.2022. He submits that when the learned Single Judge disposed of the earlier Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 08 of 2022, on 06. 01.2022, the said O.T.S. scheme was still current and operational.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and perused the record.
As noticed above, in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. when the appellants preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 08 of 2022, they did not seek the relief of consideration of the O.T.S. proposal. It appears that they only sought subsidy from the respondent/ bank. That apart, the authority of the Committee, which met on 25.03.2022 and decided that the appellants’ O.T.S. proposal should be considered, is not clear to us. It also appears that the said Committee was completely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had, in fact, been made an O.T.S. offer earlier, which they failed to comply with. The appellants placed on the record of the Writ Petition, the O.T.S. offer made to them by the respondent/ bank on 31.12.2020 for Rs. 24,82,555.44/-, entailing concession to the tune of Rs. 4,80,755.00/-. The said O.T.S. approval took into account the fact that the appellants had deposited Rs. 5,77,100.00 on 05.11.2020, and it stipulated that the remaining amount be deposited by the appellants in four equal installments between 31.12.2020 to 31.03.2021. The appellants, however, did not comply with this O.T.S. offer made to them.
In these circumstances, in our view, the appellants cannot be said to have any vested right for consideration of another O.T.S. offer by the respondent/ bank. It is also pertinent to note that the fresh O.T.S. scheme dated 28.06.2021, on which the appellants place reliance, stipulated that the same was applicable to accounts, wherein the outstanding amount was to the tune of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. However, in the account of the appellants, the outstanding amount was beyond the said figure. For that reason as well, the said O.T.S. scheme could not be invoked by the appellants.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
In sequel thereto, all pending applications also stand disposed of.