The court held that failure to disclose prior litigation and compliance issues negated eligibility for discretionary relief under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent bank to recover amounts due under a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was regular and prompt in making repayment of the loan. But due to financial crisis and the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not service the loan regularly.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that, on default being committed, the bank had initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 and had obtained an Award. It is submitted that, the Award was put to execution and Exhibit P1 sale notice has now been issued. It is submitted that, this is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.4203 of 2025, which was disposed of on 05.03.2025, permitting the petitioner to make an application for One Time Settlement. It is submitted that, the bank was directed to consider the application for One Time Settlement and till such time as the petitioners files the application for One Time Settlement and in order to provide time for consideration of the application for One Time settlement, recovery proceedings were deferred till 31.03.2025. It is pointed out that the petitioner has again filed this writ petition even without disclosing the filing of the earlier writ petition. It is submitted that, notwithstanding the above, this Court, on 27.10.2025, passed an interim order, directing that the sale pursuant to Exhibit P1 shall not be confirmed for a period of one month subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards the loan liability within a period of three weeks from 27.10.2025. It is submitted that, no amount has been remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated

27.10.2025.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not disclosed the filing of the earlier writ petition and disposal of that writ petition in the manner indicated above. That apart, the petitioner has not demonstrated bona fides by depositing the amount directed to be deposited in terms of the interim order dated 27.10.2025.

The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.