ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court praying that the letter dated 17-2-2012 impugned at Annexure-E be quashed. Similarly, the petitioner also seeks that the notice dated 27-2-2012 at Annexure-F be quashed. 2. The petitioner is further seeking that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to settle the account on modified GOK-OTS basis. 3. Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 as also learned Government Advocate and perused the petition papers. 4. The fact that the petitioner had been sanctioned loan amounting to Rs. 14.35 lakhs by the first respondent for establishment of the small scale industry is not in dispute. However, the petitioner contends, out of the sanctioned amount, a sum of Rs. 8.07 lakhs only had been disbursed towards principal. In that light, he is entitled for consideration under the GOK-OTS Scheme. The fact that the petitioner was unable to repay the entire amount and therefore the respondent 1 had initiated action under Section 29 of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and had recovered a part of the amount and it is thereafter the balance amount is sought to be recovered by the respondent is not in dispute. Insofar as the instant petition is concerned, the only issue that is require to determine by this Court, at this juncture is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for the GOK-OTS Scheme, as contended by the petitioner or as to whether even if any settlement is sought by him, whether it should be under the M-CAR Scheme as contended by the respondent. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on the document at Annexures-A and B. From the document - Annexure-B, it is pointed out that as per the very communication addressed by the first respondent to the petitioner, it is evident that the total amount disbursed towards sanctioned loan is Rs. 8.07 lakhs. In that light, from Annexure-A, it is pointed out that the GOK-OTS Scheme would be applicable in respect of loan which is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- which has been disbursed. 6. 8.07 lakhs. In that light, from Annexure-A, it is pointed out that the GOK-OTS Scheme would be applicable in respect of loan which is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- which has been disbursed. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other would contend that in addition to the loan sanctioned to the petitioner himself and the loan which was sanctioned in favour of M/s. Vishwa Lamps Industries, Davanagere, has been transferred to the petitioner as indicated in the communication dated 5-8-1995 produced along with memo producing additional documents. In that view, it is contended that if the said loan of Rs. 2,14,026/- disbursed in favour of M/s. Vishwa Lamp Industries, is also added to the loan disbursed in favour of petitioner, it would be more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and therefore the M-CAR Scheme would be applicable. It is further contended, it is in that view the petitioner had paid an initial amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- for consideration under the said scheme and as such, the petitioner at this juncture cannot seek that he is entitle for consideration under the GOK-OTS Scheme. The learned Counsel would also refer to the document produced as Annexure-R5 to contend that the petitioner had sold a property regarding which mortgage had created in favour of first respondent during the pendency of the transaction and therefore the petitioner not having approached this Court with clean hands cannot claim any relief. 7. In the light of the rival contentions as already noticed above, the limited scope of this petition is only to hold as to whether the case of the petitioner should be considered under the GOK-OTS Scheme or M-CAR Scheme. From a perusal of the communication dated 21-10-2009 addressed by the first respondent to petitioner at Annexure-A, it is clear that if the disbursed amount is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, the GOK-OTS Scheme Would be applicable. The first respondent, however, contends that the amount disbursed in the instant case is more than Rs. 10,00,000/- if the transferred loan in addition to the loan sanctioned in favour of petitioner and disbursed is taken into account. The contention put forth is due to the reason that the amount of loan disbursed to M/s. Vishwa Lamp Industries was transferred to the account of the petitioner and in that view, if a sum of Rs. 2,14,026/-disbursed to them is added to the amount of Rs. The contention put forth is due to the reason that the amount of loan disbursed to M/s. Vishwa Lamp Industries was transferred to the account of the petitioner and in that view, if a sum of Rs. 2,14,026/-disbursed to them is added to the amount of Rs. 8.07 lakhs which was disbursed in favour of petitioner, it would be more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 8. From the documents available on record, the learned Counsel for the respondents refers to a document at Annexure-Rl produced along with the objections statement. There is no clarity in the said document to come to a conclusion that the said amount of Rs. 2,14,026/- that of M/s. Vishwa Lamp Industries is in addition to the amount that is indicated in the communication dated 6-11-2009. Further, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner in addition to the averments made in the petition has also filed an affidavit before this Court as directed by this Court on an earlier date of hearing. From the affidavit, it is seen that in respect of the loan sanctioned at Rs. 14.35 lakhs, it is stated that the amount disbursed is only a sum of Rs. 5,97,000/-. The original statement maintained in this regard has been relied on at the time of hearing. In that light it is contended that the amount as mentioned in the letter dated 6-11-2009 at Rs. 5,97,000/- is the only amount disbursed in favour of the petitioner in respect of loan of Rs. 14.35 lakhs sanctioned in his favour. It is in that view contended that the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- indicated therein is in respect of loan which was transferred to the name of the petitioner from M/s. Vishwa Lamp Industries. In the light of there being no clarity from the document at Annexure-Rl and also there being no other document which would conclusively establish the position with regard to the disbursement of the loan, the communication dated 6-11-2011 at Annexure-B addressed by the first respondent themselves would have to be taken into consideration and if the same is taken note, the amount disbursed as stated by respondent 1, it would be in a sum of Rs. 8.07 lakhs only. It is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- whereunder, the entitlement of consideration under the GOK-OTS Scheme is provided for. 9. 8.07 lakhs only. It is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- whereunder, the entitlement of consideration under the GOK-OTS Scheme is provided for. 9. Hence, it would have to be held in the instance case that the petitioner will be entitled to seek consideration of his case from the first respondent under the GOK-OTS Scheme. With regard to contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that the property which had been mortgaged was sold and therefore the relief sought should be denied to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is premature at this juncture. I am of the said opinion for the reason that firstly the first respondent in any event would have preceding right over the property when there is a mortgage. Further, it is also brought to the notice that said property has been attached. Therefore, if on consideration of the case of the petitioner under the GOK-OTS Scheme and even thereafter if there is further amount due and payable by the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to pay the said amount and if the said amount is not paid, in any event the first respondent having the preceding right over the property will still be entitled to recover the amount from selling the said property. Therefore, it is necessary to direct at this stage that the case of the petitioner be considered under the GOK-OTS Scheme in accordance with provisions contained in the said scheme and thereafter fresh orders be passed in accordance with law. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of petitioner. In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.