Sheikh Yakub Sheikh Mehboob And Another v. State Of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Ministry Of Cooperation, Mantralaya And ORS

2026:BHC-NAG:3937-DB 1 1-WP-933-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.933 OF 2025 Sheikh Yakub Sheikh Mehboob, Buldana and anr. vs.

State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R. K. Thakkar, Advocate for petitioners. Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Shri P. S. Rajurekar, Advocate h/f Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATED : 5th March, 2026 The grievance raised by the petitioners in this petition is that on submission of a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) under the scheme under Government Resolution dated 06/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 with willingness to deposit 5% of the outstanding amount alongwith application, the respondent No.4-Bank demanded 25% amount contrary to the Government Resolution dated 10/06/2024. It is therefore submitted that, the respondent-Bank is acting contrary to the Government Resolution dated 10/06/2024 in not accepting the OTS.

2.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Government Resolution dated 10/06/2024 has not been accepted and adopted by the respondent-Bank and as such, the said scheme is not applicable to the respondent-Bank. It is therefore submitted that the proposal of the petitioners was not considered under the said scheme. However, considering the request of the petitioners, the petitioners were asked to deposit 25% amount at initial stage for considering their request for OTS. It is therefore submitted that the case of the petitioners is misconceived.

2 1-WP-933-25.odt 3.

Considering the stand taken by the respondent-Bank that Government Resolution dated 10/06/2024 was not accepted and adopted by the respondent-Bank, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners that, whether the Bank has accepted the OTS as stipulated in Government Resolution dated 06/06/2024 or 10/06/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any document contrary to the stand of the Bank to show that the Bank has accepted or adopted such scheme. 4.

If the scheme under the Government Resolutions dated 06/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 is considered, there is a specific clause stating that accepting/adopting said OTS scheme is not binding on such Sahkari Pat Sanstha/Banks.

5.

Thus, the Bank has to take decision whether to accept and adopt such scheme or not. In the present matter, respondent-Bank has not accepted the scheme as stipulated under the Government Resolution dated 06/06/2024 or 10/06/2024.

6.

Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is misconceived and accordingly cannot be accepted. The petition fails. Accordingly same is dismissed. No costs.

(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil S. Kilor, J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/03/2026 10:33:26