THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.27178 of 2010 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting time for payment of the loan amount under One Time Settlement Agreement dated 26.07.2004, by releasing the documents of title of the properties of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner company having availed various loans failed to discharge the same. The first respondent Bank filed O.A.No.382 of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for recovery of debt amount. During the pendency of O.A., the petitioner company approached the Bank for One Time Settlement and it agreed to receive a sum of Rs.76.75 lakhs towards full and final settlement vide agreement dated 26.07.2004. The petitioner though made part payment failed to discharge the entire loan amount as per the said agreement. Subsequently, O.A. was allowed on 12.11.2007, Recovery Certificate was issued for an amount of Rs.5,16,39,305.28ps together with interest from the date of order till realization, proclamation of sale dated 23.06.2009, was issued, Recovery Officer conducted auction of the properties in question and the sale was also confirmed on 14.09.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent Bank without releasing the title deeds of the properties in question for complying the terms and conditions of the One Time Settlement, is proceeding to conduct auction, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The first respondent Bank filed counter stating that as the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of One Time Settlement agreement, it proceeded further in O.A.No.382 of 2002 and the same was allowed on 12.11.2007 and consequently, Recovery Certificate was also issued. It is further stated that the petitioner without preferring an appeal against the O.A., filed the present writ petition with false allegations. It is further stated that there are no guidelines under One Time Settlement Scheme for release of the documents relating to the mortgaged properties much before the amount is paid to the Bank. It is also stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Recovery Officer, remedy of appeal is available to him as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and that the writ petition at this belated stage is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent Bank without granting time for payment of the loan amount under One Time Settlement Scheme and without releasing the title deeds of the mortgaged property has proceeded further. He further contended that the first respondent had violated Rule 56 of the Income Tax Rules by accepting the single bid in the auction. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/S. SARDAR ASSOCIATES v. PUNJAB & SINDH BANK[1] wherein it was held as under: “Respondent-Bank concededly is a public sector bank. It was, therefore, bound by the said guidelines. Salient features of the guidelines are as under: “(c) The guidelines will cover cases on which the banks have initiated action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR”. (ii) Settlement Formula amount (a) NPAs classified at Doubtful or Loss as on March 31, 2004. The minimum amount that should be recovered in respect of compromise settlement of NPAs classified as doubtful or loss as on 31st March, 2004 would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date on which the account was categorized as doubtful NPA. (b) NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 2004 which became doubtful or loss subsequently; The minimum amount that should be recovered in respect of NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 2004 which became doubtful or loss subsequently would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date on which the account was categorized as doubtful NPAs plus interest at existing Basic Prime Lending Rate from 1s t April, 2004 till the date of final payment’. (iii) Payment The amount of settlement arrived at in both the above cases, should preferably be paid in one lump sum. In cases where the borrowers are unable to pay the entire amount in one lump sum, at least 25% of the amount of settlement should be paid upfront and the balance amount of 75% should be recovered in installments within a period of one year together with interest at the existing Prime Lending Rate from the date of settlement up to the date of final payment. (v) Non-discretionary treatment: Banks shall follow the above guidelines for one time settlement of all NPAs covered under the scheme, without discrimination and a monthly report on the progress and details of settlement should be submitted by the concerned authority to the next high authority and their Central Office. Banks may go for wide publicity and also give notice January 31, 2006 to the eligible defaulting borrowers to avail of the opportunity for one time settlement of their outstanding dues in terms of these guidelines. Adequate publicity to these guidelines through various means must be ensured. 4. Any deviation from the above settlement guidelines for any borrower shall be made only by the Board of Directors’. The said circular letter was issued by the Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India. The High Court in its impugned judgment inter alia was of the opinion that he had no authority therefor”. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED[2] wherein it was held as under: “The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof’. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank contended that as the petitioner failed to fulfill the terms of One Time Settlement agreement and as there was a delay from the date of auction to the date of filing the writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that without availing the remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Act, against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and as such, the order of the Tribunal has become final. He further contended that the sale was confirmed on 14.09.2009 and that if any material irregularities are there i.e., accepting a single bid, the petitioner can brought the same before the Recovery Officer under Rules 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Rules. He also contended that as the petitioner has not impleaded the auction purchaser, the writ petition is bad for non-impleadment of proper and necessary parties. He reiterated the averment made in the counter that there is no provision under One Time Settlement Scheme for release of the documents relating to the mortgaged properties much before the amount is paid to the Bank. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made part payment of an amount of Rs.18 lakhs out of the agreed amount of Rs.76.75 lakhs by the respondent Bank under One Time Settlement Agreement, dated 26.07.2004, which was valid up to 30.09.2004, and he failed to pay the remaining amount. Though the said Agreement was made in 2004, the petitioner filed the present writ petition at a belated stage after six years with the grievance of non-granting of time for one year under One Time Settlement Scheme by releasing the documents of title deeds of the properties in question. O.A.No.382 of 2002 filed by the first respondent was allowed on 12.11.2007, Recovery Certificate was issued, Proclamation of sale was issued by the Recovery Officer and the sale was also confirmed on 14.09.2009. The petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Act against the order of the Tribunal and as such, the said order has attained finality. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Recovery Officer in accepting the single bid, he can assail the same under Rules 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Rules, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent. Since the order of the Tribunal has attained finality and the sale was also confirmed on 14.09.2009, we are not inclined to go into the matter with regard to the One Time Settlement Agreement at this point of time. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:28.03.2011 sj [1] AIR 2010 SC 218 [2] AIR 2003 SC 511