JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner, which a Service Co-operative Bank, registered and operating under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, has filed this writ petition impugning Exhibit P8 order, as per which, the Society has been directed, by the competent Secretary of the Government, to refund to respondents 4 to 8 certain amounts found to have been collected by the petitioner from them, illgally and in excess of authority, while closing the loan accounts availed of by the respondents. This order appears to have been issued by the Government on the basis of a complaint preferred by respondents 4 to 8, who had concededly availed loans from the Bank, alleging that the Bank had recovered more than three times the principal amount availed by them towards interest and penal interest. 2. Respondents 4 to 8 are seen to be relying on Exhibit P4 circular wherein a specific stipulation has been made that the loans taken by the members of the Bank for amounts from Rs.1 to 3 lakhs shall be recovered only with interest equal to the principal and 25% of the interest accrued beyond that. 3. The Secretary of the Government of Kerala issued Exhibit P8 order in appeal filed by the Secretary of the Bank against the orders of the Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies finding that the Bank had not complied with Exhibit P4 circular while making recovery of the loan outstanding from respondents 4 to 8. The order impugned has found that the action of the Bank in having recovered such large amounts as interest, from respondents 4 to 8, is unconscionable and contrary to the spirit of Exhibit P4 circular and has directed that the excess amount collected under the interest account be refunded to respondents 4 to 8. The petitioner impugns this order on various grounds but inter alia on the ground that they were not heard before Exhibits P6(a) to P6(d) proceedings, from which Exhibit P8 order finally emanated, were issued by the third respondent-the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that Exhibit P4 circular does not operate in the manner as has been interpreted by the authorities. 4. I have heard Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. 5. There are two provisions in Exhibit P4 that come into play in this writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. 5. There are two provisions in Exhibit P4 that come into play in this writ petition. They are clauses 2 and 8 thereof. Clause 2 of Exhibit P4 says that if the loans taken by the members, for amounts from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.3 lakhs, become over due or non performing, then the loanees shall be allowed to settle the account by paying the principal amount along with equal amount of interest as also 25% of such interest that is accrued beyond that, which is equal to the principal amount. The authorities have issued orders relying upon this clause. However, the petitioner points out that Clause 8 of Exhibit P4 is also equally relevant. This clause provides that if there are disputes regarding the loans and its repayment, then such loanees will be liable to repay the entire interest that has accrued. 6. I have examined Exhibit P8, which is the final fact finding order, issued by the competent Secretary of the Government. It seems to rely exclusively on the provisions of clause 2 of Exhibit P4 even though it has passingly referred to clause 8 of the circular. In Exhibit P8, the Secretary of the Government has noticed that as per the factual reports submitted before him, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank contrary to the directions contained in clauses 2 and 8 of Exhibit P4 circular. It is seen that the arguments of the petitioner before the Secretary was that the circular applies only to agricultural loans. The Secretary of the Government considered this contention in its full import and found that the circular applies to all loans and that the action of the Bank in filing an ARC for recovery of the loan over due and outstanding from respondents 4 to 8, for amounts calculated contrary to clause 2 of Exhibit P4 circular, was the reason why there was a delay for recovery. He has, in Exhibit P8 order, found that the action of the respondents in having filed a writ petition before this Court cannot be considered as an unnecessary litigation for delaying the repayment of the loan, since they were constrained to do so on account of illegal action of the Bank in attempting to recover amounts in excess of what was eligible to be recovered under the terms of Exhibit P4 circular. It was recording the reasons as above that the competent Secretary of the Government has issued Exhibit P8. 7. On a reading of Exhibit P8, it is luculent that the Secretary has taken into consideration certain specific factors in coming to the conclusion as he has therein. It may be true that petitioner was not heard by the Assistant Registrar while he issued Exhibits P6 (a) to P6 (d) proceedings. However, that defect has been set right by the Secretary, while issuing Exhibit P8 order, since the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard. In such view of the matter, I do not think that the contention of the petitioner that Exhibit P6 to P6(d) orders are bad for not giving them an opportunity of being heard would be sustainable. 8. That being said, however, there are certain problems that I notice in Exhibit P8 order, prima facie. I see that respondents 4 to 8 had availed of Rs.2 lakhs each as early as in 1995. It appears that they were guarantors for each other in the loan and registered mortgages were created for securing such loans. I notice that an award was passed on 27.04.1998 in the arbitration case filed against them, which later led to execution petitions. Respondents 4 to 8 seem to have approached the Assistant Registrar for time to make payment, but that no payments were made by them. Five writ petitions were thereafter filed by them before this Court, namely O.P. Nos.15934/1999, 15961/1999, 16023/1999, 16030/1999 and 16037/1999 and interim orders appear to have been issued by this Court in the said cases on condition that they remit Rs.25,000/- each. The records do not reflect that this has been complied with by respondents 4 to 8. 9. The pleadings would show that respondents 4 to 8 then filed appeals before the Government and that O.P. No.32504/1999 was filed challenging the recovery proceedings against them. The records do not reflect that this has been complied with by respondents 4 to 8. 9. The pleadings would show that respondents 4 to 8 then filed appeals before the Government and that O.P. No.32504/1999 was filed challenging the recovery proceedings against them. This original petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to consider the appeals. The appeals were dismissed by the Government on 24.10.2000. Respondents 4 to 8 thereafter filed O.P.No.4715/2001, which was disposed of by this Court directing them to file statutory revisions. However, without doing so, they again filed appeals before the Government, which are seen to have been disposed of, as per G.O.(Rt)No.345/2003 allowing respondents 4 to 8 herein to effect private sale. However, this did not fructify and the said respondents again approached the Government. I notice that as per Exhibit P2 order, dated 13.10.2005, these appeals were dismissed holding that respondents 4 to 8 were trying to protract the recovery proceedings. Exhibit P2 order was challenged before this Court by respondents 4 to 8 by filing W.P.(C)No.683/2006 and connected matters. Even though there was a conditional order from this Court, that was not honoured. Respondents 4 to 8 thereafter agreed to remit the amount under One Time Settlement Scheme. This was also not honoured. Therefore, fresh steps for recovery were taken. They, at that stage, filed W.P.(C)No.17434/2006 and later W.P.(C)No.5063/2007 seeking permission to pay the amount under an OTS Scheme and challenging the steps taken for recovery. W.P.(C)No.5063/2007 was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 14.02.2007. The Society appears to have taken steps for sale of the properties, which was again challenged by respondents 4 to 8 by filing W.P.(C)No. 9372/2007 claiming that they were entitled to the benefit of clause 2 of Exhibit P4 circular. This writ petition was, however, withdrawn by them as is evident from Exhibit P5 judgment. The mortgaged properties were thus brought to auction on 23.02.2007. Before confirmation of the sale, respondents 4 to 8 remitted the entire amount in the loan accounts. It is after such sale and remittance of the entire amount that the respondents had approached the authorities which led to Exhibits P6 to P6(d) proceedings, confirmed by Exhibit P8 order, which are impugned in this writ petition. 10. Before confirmation of the sale, respondents 4 to 8 remitted the entire amount in the loan accounts. It is after such sale and remittance of the entire amount that the respondents had approached the authorities which led to Exhibits P6 to P6(d) proceedings, confirmed by Exhibit P8 order, which are impugned in this writ petition. 10. An over view of the history of the litigation as above would show that the respondents were consistently approaching this Court and obtaining orders but without the intent of honouring such orders. The respondents had, much thereafter, being unable to stop sale of the properties, remitted the entire amounts on their own volition before sale was confirmed. The qeustion is whether they can, in the background of the above history of litigation, be allowed the benefit of Exhibit P4 circular, especially in view of clause 8 thereof. This clause makes it indisputable that if the loanee initiates litigation against recovery, then he will be liable to pay interest for the whole period of such litigation even if the interest component exceeds the principal. 11. In the case at hand, it is more or less clear that litigations were launched by respondents 4 to 8 at every stage of the recovery proceedings. As noticed above, they have remitted the full amounts into the loan account faced with imminent sale of the properties. This Court has, in several judgments, including the decision in Cheranalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Alfred, 2010 (1) KLT 749 : 2010 (1) KLJ 518 , held that the scheme for waiver of interest is not intended to operate in favour of persons who have closed their loan account and that the scheme is not designed and intended to refund the amounts thus already collected. 12. The essential question in this case is whether any excess amounts have been collected from respondents 4 to 8. The loan amount had escalated on account of the delay in recovery, which was contributed, in substantial or full extent by them, because of the various litigations. It is in such background that the question becomes relevant whether respondents 4 to 8 would be entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P4, when clause 8 thereof prescribes that in case of disputes and litigation being launched by the loanees, they would not be entitled to remission of interest. It is in such background that the question becomes relevant whether respondents 4 to 8 would be entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P4, when clause 8 thereof prescribes that in case of disputes and litigation being launched by the loanees, they would not be entitled to remission of interest. It is also pertinent and relevant in this case that respondents 4 to 8 had obtained no favourable orders in any of the litigations and that they had finally paid the amounts in the loan accounts fully to avoid the sale. 13. I have recorded all the above facts since I see that in Exhibit P8 order these facts have not been considered or taken into account. I am sure that the competent authorities ought to have considered all these facts before Exhibit P8 order could have been issued. 14. I do not, however, propose to go into the interpretation of Exhibit P4 in any further detail or the impact of the various litigations filed by the respondents affirmatively because I think that these are issues which have to be first considered by the competent authorities before it can be conclusively adjudicated by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 15. Suffice to say that the proceedings that are impugned in this writ petition does not take into account Clause 8 of Exhibit P4, at least, nothing has been placed on record to show that the authorities had considered impact of clause 8, vis-a-vis clause 2 of the said order. A reading of clause 8 would prima facie concede to an impression that the provisions of clause 2 would apply only to those loans where there were no disputes or litigations relating to recovery. I am not saying that this is a conclusive view but I saying that this could be a primary view. I am certain that this contention of the petitioner requires to be considered by the competent authorities before action is confirmed against them for refund of the alleged excess collected by them. 16. I am not saying that this is a conclusive view but I saying that this could be a primary view. I am certain that this contention of the petitioner requires to be considered by the competent authorities before action is confirmed against them for refund of the alleged excess collected by them. 16. In order to pave way for fresh consideration of all the factors at the hands of the first respondent, I deem it necessary to quash Exhibit P8 order and direct the authority, who issued it, to re-consider the claims of respondents 4 to 8 in the light of the observations made herein as also the ratio contained in the judgment of this Court in Alfred (supra). This exercise shall be completed by the competent Secretary of the first respondent- Government of Kerala, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Secretary of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is thus ordered.