A bank is not legally obliged to accommodate lower offers from borrowers for loan settlements.

The petitioner seeks intervention of this court only on the ground of sympathy, there being no legally acceptable ground to interfere with the action of the bank.

2. The chequered history of this case shows that earlier an attempt was made to challenge the sale proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. The petition was disposed of on 12.1.2011, where the court refused to interfere with the rate at which the bank had required the petitioner to settle the loan, if she wanted, towards release of charge over the property. It was ordered that, on payment at the rate of Rs.875/- per sq.ft., the bank shall release the charge over the plots in question and issue sale certificate in favour of the petitioner. It was further observed that in case of non-compliance, the bank would be at liberty to proceed against the property in accordance with law.

It was made clear that the court was not ready to reduce the rate of Rs.875/- per sq.ft.

The observation that in case the petitioner approaches for any sort of concession in price, the bank can sympathetically consider, appears to have been taken advantage of by keeping the matter pending for the last 14 years without making any payment at the rate specified by the bank.

3. The observation that, if the petitioner approaches the bank, the bank can sympathetically consider the same, is not a mandamus obliging the bank to consider any rate offered by the petitioner. The bank having not accepted the rate offered by the petitioner, the matter should have ended there and the petitioner should have paid the entire amount to save the property from being sold in auction.

Therefore, in these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, interim application stands closed.