A writ of mandamus cannot compel a financial institution to extend benefits of an expired One-Time Settlement Scheme if the borrower has previously defaulted on the contract terms.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J

This intra-court appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.26956/2024 dated 09.09.2024. The appellant herein is the Idukki District Police Co-operative Society Ltd., 7^th respondent in the aforesaid writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner, Rasheed A. K., had availed four loans from the appellant, Idukki District Police Co-operative Society Ltd. and defaulted the repayment. The writ petitioner/1^st respondent had claimed benefits under various One Time Settlement Schemes [for short, ‘OTS Schemes’] for clearing the outstanding loan amount. The last OTS Scheme announced was under Ext.P14 circular dated 07.06.2024. The request submitted by the writ petitioner/1^st respondent was turned down by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Society as per Ext.P20 communication. Thereafter, 1^st respondent approached the writ Court claiming the following reliefs:

“(1) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P20 letter issued by the Assistant Registrar General, Idukki.

(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the benefits under Exhibit P14 Circular or Exhibit P10 to P13 Circulars as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to form the committees including society level Committee required to be formed under Exhibit P10-P14 circulars and pass appropriate orders on claim for one time settlement by the petitioner with in a time frame fixed by this Honourable court.

(iv) Direct all coercive proceedings including Exhibit P15 to P18 Execution proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending finalization of the one-time settlement of the petitioner's loans in accordance with Ext. P10 to P14 circulars.”

3. The contention of the petitioner was that, during 2023 itself, the OTS benefit was extended to the 1^st respondent as per Ext.R7(a) and the same was not been acted upon by the 1^st respondent. It was also contended that the Society is running at a loss and therefore, is not obliged to extend the benefits under Ext.P14 circular.

4. The pith and substance of the contention of the writ petitioner/1^st respondent is that, the benefits under Ext.P14 circular has to be extended to the defaulters.

5. The learned Single Bench considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P14 circular and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner supported the judgment of the learned Single Bench. According to the learned counsel, no interference is warranted in this matter. 7. On the other hand, Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is patently illegal, unsustainable and incorrect. Adv.P.C.Sasidharan submitted that the benefit of OTS Scheme has already been granted to the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner as evident from Ext.R7(a) on 13.12.2023. The writ petitioner did not make any payment pursuant to Ext.R7(a). Therefore, 1^st respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit under the subsequent OTS Schemes. The learned counsel submitted that, once the OTS Scheme expired, there is no enabling provision to extend the Scheme after the date of its expiry.

8. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

9. The short question involved in this Writ Appeal is that whether the writ court ca