Judgment : BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The 2nd respondent in the Writ petition is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the writ petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 1 and 2 availed two loans from the appellant Bank, of Rs.50,000/-each. They closed their loan accounts on 14/12/2005. The same was done after the Arbitrator passed an award against them and further steps were taken to execute it. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies notified a scheme for one-time settlement of the loans due to the Co-operative Societies. The said scheme ended on 31/3/2005. Later, the Registrar notified Ext.P1 scheme on 27/2/2006 for the benefit of persons, who are defaulters since 31/03/2005. They were permitted to remit the amounts without penal interest, compound interest, interest for interest etc. The respondents 1 and 2, claiming the benefit of Ext.P1, filed a representation before the joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Ernakulam. The said officer issued Ext.P2 communication to the appellant to consider the claim of respondents 1 and 2 sympathetically. They wanted to treat their loan accounts closed as per Ext.P1 and requested for payment of the balance amount from the Bank. Since the Bank did not take any steps on Ext. P2, the Writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge directed to calculated the loan amount payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the light of Ext. p1 and ordered to refund the balance amount they have remitted over and above what was due in terms of Ext. P1. Challenging the said judgment, the appellant Bank has preferred this Writ Appeal. 4. Heard, Going by Ext. P1, it could be seen that the scheme is meant for the benefit of persons who were in default as on 31/03/2005 and continued to be defaulters till the issuance of Ext. P1. It is not meant for persons who have closed their loan accounts after 31/03/2005, but before the issuance of Ext.P1 on 27/02/2006. One-time settlement schemes are notified to collect the arrears due to Banks and not to refund the amounts already collected. Going by the terms of Ext. P1, the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to get refund of the amounts already paid by them. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Going by the terms of Ext. P1, the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to get refund of the amounts already paid by them. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single judge is reversed and the Writ petition is dismissed.