JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent bank to postpone the sale that is proposed in Ext.P2 notice, till such time as Ext.P5 representation preferred by them for the benefit of a one time settlement is considered by the respondent bank.

2. On a perusal of the averments in the writ petition, I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.16412/2017 and by Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed the petitioners to prefer their applications for revival of the establishment and the respondent Government to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the Government Orders in force. It would appear that the said application preferred by the petitioners did not yield any positive result and as a result Ext.P2 notice came to be issued by the respondent bank putting up the properties of the petitioners for sale.

In the writ petition, the petitioner submits that he had approached the respondent bank with an offer of one time settlement and the bank refused to consider the same. I notice, however, that as against the outstanding liability of about Rs.8 Crores, the offer by the petitioner was to pay Rs.2 C