Repeated non-compliance with court-ordered payments disentitles borrowers to further equitable relief in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are before this Court challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent bank to recover the amounts due under credit facilities availed by them from the respondent bank. The petitioners challenge Exhibit P10 auction notice (to the extent it applied to their property). The petitioners also pray that the petitioners may be permitted to avail the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme, applicable to banks constituted under the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Act, 1984, till 31.03.2026

2. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit that this is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioners and that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners as W.P.(C) No.13076 of 2025 was disposed of on 18.07.2025 through Ext.P.5 judgment, permitting the petitioners to clear the outstanding liability in twenty equal monthly instalments. It is submitted that, in W.P.(C) No. 13076 of 2025, practically the only relief sought was to permit the Petitioners to clear their liability in twenty equal monthly instalments. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would further submit that, apart from two instalments, the petitioners failed to remit any further amount in terms of the directions contained in Exhibit P5, forcing the respondent bank to initiate fresh recovery proceedings against the petitioners. It is submitted that, when this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 19.02.2026, this Court passed an interim order directing that proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P10 shall not be confirmed on condition that the petitioners remit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the loan liability within a period of two months from 19.02.2026. It is submitted that no amount has been remitted by the petitioners in terms of the interim order dated 19.02.2026. It is submitted that no sale (of the petitioners' property) took place pursuant to Exhibit P10.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case for the grant of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioners. In the earlier writ petition, as noticed above, the petitioners had sought for 20 monthly instalments to clear the liability. That prayer was granted by this Court. Yet the petitioners failed to discharge the liability, forcing the respondent bank to continue with the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In the present writ petition, the first relief sought is in respect of Exhibit P10 auction notice. That does not survive for consideration since it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that no sale took place pursuant to Exhibit P10. The only other relief sought by the petitioners is that the petitioners may be permitted to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement, which was in force in respect of the banks constituted under the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Act, 1984, only till 31.03.2026. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners have even applied for obtaining the benefits of One Time Settlement. Therefore, essentially, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition have become infructuous.

4. That apart, the petitioners have not demonstrated bona fides by paying the amounts directed to be paid as a condition for the interim order dated 19.02.2026. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any further reliefs in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dismissal of this wri