Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a Scheduled Co-operative Bank, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960, seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the Respondent No.1-The Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Government of Maharashtra, restraining him from directing the Petitioner to consider the OTS proposal of Respondent No.2, as conveyed through the proposal letters dated 7th August, 2006 and 14th September, 2006.

2) Mr. Atul Damle, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have triggered a speculative litigation by misleading Courts and with a malafide intent to secure reliefs which they are otherwise not entitled, particularly when the proceedings had already attained finality. According to him, and as borne out from the record, the account of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 came to be classified as an NPA as far back as on 31st March 2004. Thereafter, various proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar, as well as the before this Court.

                   2.1) He further submitted that, the conduct of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 clearly demonstrates that they had abandoned the OTS offer extended to them on or about 22nd August, 2006. Under the said offer, the Respondents were required to pay a sum of Rs.226.44 lakhs in terms of the State Government Circular. Instead of availing the benefit of the OTS the Respondents, according to him, engaged in unnecessary correspondence with the Petitioner, with the sole intent of delaying the proceedings. Their failure to avail OTS culminated in the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in favour of the Petitioner. Eventually, the Recovery Certificates were duly executed by the Petitioner, resulting in sale of the flat as well as the jewellery. The Recovery Certificate came to be marked as satisfied and the matter stood concluded. As a matter of record, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not only participated in the execution proceedings but also permitted the sale of the flat.

3) Mr. Drupad Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 made a valiant attempt to defend their case. He however had no answer to the query posed by the Court, as to whether a Bank could be compelled to accept an OTS proposal or to extend a fresh OTS offer. He was also unable to answer whether the Respondents had, at any point of time offered the entire amount due and payable under the OTS Scheme. On instructions, the only response was that, certain amounts were deposited with the Bank at the relevant time. He contended that the consent to the sale would not amount to acceptance of the liability. He further submitted that the Respondents had sought appointment of an independent Chartered Accountant to determine the amount due and payable as on the date on which the account was classified as an NPA.

4) We have heard both learned counsel and have carefully perused the record.

5) This in our view is a classic case of the Respondents seeking to “flog a dead horse” as the proverb goes. The Respondents were fully aware that their account was declared as an NPA as early as on 13th March 2004. A Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of MCS Act was issued on 12th May, 2005 followed by a Warrant of Attachment on 21st June, 2005. Thereafter, a Possession Notice was issued on 8th July, 2006. A Revision Application preferred by the Respondents was subsequently withdrawn. Possession of the flat was handed over on 5th December, 2009 and the sale stood confirmed on 31st December, 2009. Eventually, the Recovery Certificate was marked as satisfied and the proceedings stood closed. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were unsuccessful in all their attempts to obstruct the execution of the Recovery Certificate.

6) In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the Respondent No.1, by entertaining the Applications of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, has enabled yet another attempt to reopen issues which had already attained finality and stood concluded.

7) In our view, there is no question of reopening the issue by directing reconsideration of an OTS proposal which had long since lapsed and in respect of which the matter itself stands concluded. Consequently, there could be no direction to the Petitioner to reconsider such proposal. Accordingly, the proposal letters dated 7th August, 2006 and 14th September, 2006 as also the Application dated 2nd February, 2012 filed by the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 before the competent authority namely Respondent No.1, are quashed and set aside.

                   7.1) Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

8) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Civil Application No.879 of 2019 filed therein does not survive and is also disposed off.