ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to consider the application dated 25-3-2010 vide Annexure-Q submitted by the petitioners for One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS Scheme) and consequently to dispose of the application. To enable such consideration, the petitioners have also sought that the communication of rejection dated 26-4-2010 (Annexure-R) be quashed. 2. The petitioners had availed certain financial assistance from the respondent-Board to carry on its business in Floriculture. The fact that the petitioners were unable to repay the amount as per the schedule due to certain difficulties encountered in the course of their business activities is not in dispute. However, the respondents taking note of the difficulties of the persons who had obtained financial assistance from the respondent-Board had brought into effect the guidelines for one time settlement of Soft Loan Recoveries. 3. The petitioners in order to take benefit of the scheme submitted an application seeking consideration of the case of the petitioners for OTS under the guidelines. A detailed representation in this regard was made by the petitioners dated 25-3-2010 explaining the circumstances and seeking benefit of the scheme. In order to establish their bona fides and also take benefit of the scheme, the principle amount which was required to be paid was indicated to have been paid by accounting the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- which has been paid in the pending appeal in RFA No. 2384 of 2006 and in addition, a cheque dated 25-3-2010 for Rs. 43,50,000/- was also submitted. 4. The respondents however by their communication dated 26-4-2010 have returned the cheque for Rs. 43,50,000/- and rejected the request for consideration under the OTS Scheme. The petitioners once again submitted a request dated 6-7-2011. The respondents however have not considered the case of the petitioners favourably. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having taken me through the averments contained in the petition and the documents based on which the petitioners are seeking benefit under the OTS Scheme, would submit that even in respect of the recovery suits which have been filed, the guidelines provide for consideration under the OTS Scheme. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having taken me through the averments contained in the petition and the documents based on which the petitioners are seeking benefit under the OTS Scheme, would submit that even in respect of the recovery suits which have been filed, the guidelines provide for consideration under the OTS Scheme. In that circumstance, the learned Counsel would point out that though the petitioners had established their bona fides for consideration under the scheme, the respondents without indicating any reason whatsoever have rejected the request and therefore the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioners under the OTS Scheme available with the respondents. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents would however submit that a suit had already been instituted against the petitioners and the same has been decreed and the final decree proceedings in that regard is pending. It is therefore contended that the request of the petitioners for consideration at this stage would not arise. The learned Counsel would submit that the respondents therefore had rejected the request and had proceeded with the suit. As such, no direction could be issued in favour of the petitioners, is the contention. 7. In the light of the case put forth in this petition and the contentions urged, there is no serious dispute that the petitioners had made representation as per the scheme by indicating their bona-fides. In that regard, the petitioners while making the request had enclosed a cheque for Rs. 43,50,000/- which along with the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- that had been paid in the first appeal which was pending before this Court would constitute the entire principal amount that had been borrowed. 8. If that be the position, the petitioners were eligible for consideration under the OTS Scheme. Though it is pointed out that a suit had been filed and the same was being prosecuted by the petitioners at that stage and even if the request was made at the time of final decree proceedings, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the document at Annexure-L would disclose that such consideration under the OTS Scheme would be possible even in respect of the cases where preliminary decrees had been obtained. 9. 9. In that view, when the respondents have not indicated any reasons much less valid reasons to reject the request made by the petitioners seeking consideration under the OTS Scheme more particularly, when the petitioners had established their bona-fides by paying a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and also submitted a cheque for Rs. 43,50,000/- for consideration of their request under the scheme, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners in a cryptic manner. 10. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the communication of the rejection dated 26-4-2010 and 19-7-2011 which are at Annexure-R and T are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. The petitioners shall now submit a current cheque for Rs. 43,50,000/- and on submission of the said cheque, the respondents shall consider the request made by the petitioners on 25-3-2010. They may also submit a further representation in that regard which shall be made as a part of the request made on 25-3-2010. 11. The respondents shall thereafter consider the request of the petitioners in terms of the guidelines and intimate the result of such consideration to the petitioners. Until such consideration is made by the respondents, no precipitative action shall be initiated against the petitioners. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.