1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR O R D E R M/s. Balaji Agencies & Ors. Vs. The RBI & Anr. (SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7298/2010) UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DATE OF ORDER : DECEMBER 8, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Gupta for the respondents. BY THE COURT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the respondents be directed to settle the loan account in terms of its one time settlement policy of the HDFC. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for settlement of the dues under the one time scheme noted by the respondent-Bank known as “Non- discretionary One Time Settlement Policy for Micro and Small enterprises in which the petitioner is covered under the head Micro (Service) Enterprises and who have invested more than Rs. 10 lakhs but does not exceed Rs. 2 crores in the activity of providing/rendering of services including small road and water transport operators, small business professional and self employed persons and all other service enterprises. It is contended that in the scheme 2 in the caption covered in clause 2 it is stated that the scheme will cover all Non Performing Loans in Bank's books on or before 30.9.08 and clause No.3 says that it will cover eligible cases where Bank has initiated recovery action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'), DRT, Section 138 and the awaiting adjudication/enforcement. Clause 4 of the scheme says that the one time scheme proposal is non- discretionary, even then the respondents have discriminated with the petitioner by not accepting his case and rejected the prayer under one time settlement by merely observing that they are not covered under the scheme and they have not assigned any reason in their letter as to how the petitioner was not eligible. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner had obtained loan under the SARFAESI Act and it was a secured loan and a house was mortgaged and this loan was not covered under the one time settlement. In the initial notice they did not claim any benefit under one time settlement. It is also contended that since the proceedings against the petitioner have been proceeded under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 3 for taking possession of the property mortgaged to the Bank. Thus the petitioner has already availed the remedy by way of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Having perused the material on record and after hearing counsel for the parties I find that although it may be true that under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act positive order was passed by the District Magistrate in favour of the bank but the scheme which the respondents have flouted for one time settlement will also to be applicable the SARFAESI Act, DRT and Section 138 and the awaiting adjudication/endorcement. Clause 3 of the one time settlement policy, therefore, covers every situation including any order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Another aspect is that the petitioner has applied for settlement under this scheme and the scheme appears to be widely worded protecting interest of the petitioner. I also find that the respondents have not given any reason as to why case of petitioner cannot be covered by this scheme. They have passed such a vague order which cannot be sustained. In the result this writ petition succeeds and the impugned letter dated 14.5.2010 rejecting claim of the petitioner under one time settlement policy is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider case of the petitioner 4 and pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of the scheme and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date petitioner submits a representation in this regard. The petitioner is directed to produced a copy of this order alongwith the representation within a period of one week. The interim order dated 20.5.2010 shall remain operative for that duration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ) J. MRG.