Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby his application for directing the respondent-Bank to settle the matter by accepting Rs. 4.75 crores and to stay all the proceedings conducted by the respondent-Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act') has been rejected; with a further prayer for the issuance of a direction to the respondent-Bank to comply with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and further restraining the respondents not to create any kind of lien over the property of the company for sale under the provisions of the Securitization Act.
2. The petitioner-company availed of certain loan and credit facilities from the respondent-Bank. As it failed to meet its financial obligation of repayment as per the agreement, the respondent-Bank filed O.A.No.292/2004 for the recovery of more than Rs. 9 crores along with the pendente lite and future interest before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the O.A., the Bank also initiated action under the Securitization Act. The petitioner moved S.A. No. 2/2007 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitization Act being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Bank published sale notice in the newspaper fixing 5.3.2007 for the auction of the mortgaged property. The petitioner-company preferred I.A. No. 71/2007 in S.A. No. 2/2007 and LA. No. 58/2007 in O.A. No. 292/2004 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) that the respondent Bank be directed to settle the matter by accepting Rs. 4.75 Crores;
(ii) to stay of proceedings conducted by the respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002;
(iii) to safeguard the interest of the patients who are obtaining regular medical assistance from the applicant.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 21.2.2007 disposed of these two applications as under:
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that it would not be expedient in the interest of justice that recovery proceedings are stalled by this Tribunal for any reason. The Bank is entitled to recover the public money. The proposed auction is therefore, allowed to take place on the schedule date, time and place. However, it will be the responsibility of the bank to ensure that until take over the assets of the company by the prospective buyer, activities of the hospital keep on going as usual. With these directions, I.A. No. 71/07 in S.A. No. 02/07 and I.A. No. 58/07 in the S.A. No. 02/07 and I.A. No. 58/07 in O.A. 292/04, are hereby disposed off.
3. The petitioner-company preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31/2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The said appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.4.2007 as under:
Accordingly, the respondent-Bank is directed to settle the dispute on the lines of Reserve Bank of India guidelines applicable at the relevant time and accept one-time settlement offered by the appellants. The Reserve Bank of India guidelines for one-time settlement envisages a pre-deposit of 25% of the NPA amount. Since the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 1 Crore as per the direction of this Tribunal, dated 22.2.2007, this would approximately meet the requirement of pre-deposit envisaged under the RBI guidelines for one - time settlement. The appellants shall approach the respondent-Bank with an offer on the basis of RBI guidelines applicable at the time of declaring the account of the appellants as NPA, and, thereafter, the concerned officials of the respondent-Bank shall call the appellants for further discussion, if necessary, and settle the matter accordingly. It is desired that the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.
It was also ordered that till the appropriate decision is taken by the respondent-Bank on one time settlement, no coercive steps against the petitioner will be taken up.
4. The respondent Bank vide its communication dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-11) communicated to the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is not covered under any of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines for one time settlement of NPA account. The petitioner challenged the decision dated 12.7.2007 of the respondent Bank before this Court vide C.W.P. No. 11397 of 2007. The principal ground urged by the petitioner was that the decision dated 12.7.2007 was in flagrant violation of the directions issued vide order dated 12.4.2007 of the Appellate Tribunal. However, this Court vide its order dated 30.7.2007 did not interfere in the matter and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved Miscellaneous Application No. 203/2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi seeking the following relief:
(i) issue a direction quashing decision dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-2); wherein the bank has rejected the case of the Applicant/Appellants without any legal right or authority;
(ii) issue a direction quashing all the proceedings of the Bank being conducted under the Securitization Act.
(iii) issue a direction to the respondents to accept the 'One Time Settlement' proposed and amount offered by the Applicant/Appellant and settle the whole loan case of the applicant/Appellant as such.
5. The said application was opposed by the respondent-bank stating their reply that the petitioners are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 14,46,36,460/-, which includes interest upto 31.8.2007 alongwith future interest and costs. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent-Bank that no direction for one time settlement can be given by the Court/ Tribunal to the Bank and the petitioners are liable to pay the outstanding amount as claimed by the respondent - Bank as per its terms and conditions.
6. The respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 7.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) after considering the matter held that the scope of the present application cannot be stretched beyond I.A. No. 71/07 filed in S.A. No. 2/2007 and I.A. No. 58/07 filed in O.A. No. 292/04, which had already been decided vide order dated 21.2.2007, against which, the appeal tiled by the petitioner was also decided vide order dated 12.4.2007. Vide impugned order the Appellate Tribunal has also observed that in another identical matter, the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the Bank in C.W.P. No. 8267 of 2007 and the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sardar Associates Ltd. and Ors. was set aside and therefore, this being the legal position, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Bank dated 12.7.2007 declining One Time Settlement proposal of the petitioner.
7. In the above stated background, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 and has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Bank to comply with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
8. Mr. Anand Chhibber, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in contradiction of the earlier order dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and also in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India as the same are having statutory flavor. Mr. Chhibber also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 8.2.2002 in C.W.P. No. 8260 of 2001 titled as Lal Chand Katia v. Punjab Financial Corporation to contend that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are having statutory flavour and the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondent-Bank in the matter of one time settlement and therefore, he is entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition.
9. On the other hand, Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Caveator has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and has cited judging of the Apex Court titled as Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain (2008-3)151 P.L.R. 196 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are purely executive instructions and have no statutory force and therefore, they do not create any right in favour of borrowers. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also held that writ of mandamus can only be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. We find no force in the arguments raised by Shri Anand Chhiber, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner. From the facts perused from the record of the case, it is crystal clear that the relief sought by the petitioner in pith and substance is to issue directions to the respondent-Bank to settle the account of the petitioner under One Time Settlement as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the controversy in Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (supra), wherein it has been laid down that the Reserve Bank of India guidelines are not only in the nature of internal guidelines for bank and financial institutions but they are purely executive instructions and have no statutory force. It has been further held that these instructions do not create any right in favour of the borrowers. It has been further laid down in the judgment that writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of officer to discharge statutory obligation. Thus, no directions can be issued to the respondent-Bank for accepting one time settlement of the borrower. The reliance of Mr. Chhibber upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lal Chand Katia's case (supra) is also misconceived as the said judgment stands over ruled impliedly by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (supra). More over, the direction in that case was issued by the Division Bench to the respondent-Bank to settle the account of the borrower under the Reserve Bank of India guidelines on the ground that the respondent has adopted a pick and choose method in accepting one time settlement of other borrowers. However, in the present case, we find that no such foundation has been laid by the petitioner to raise such a plea of discrimination by the respondent-Bank against him. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition to lay foundation for raising such an argument of discrimination against the petitioner by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner also cannot draw any advantage from the earlier decision dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal whereby, directions were given to the respondent-Bank to consider the representation of the petitioner for one time settlement as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India as the said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Bank vide communication dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-11), against which the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 11397 of 2007, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2007 refusing to entertain the writ petition. While passing the impugned order dated 7.3.2008 (Annexure P-2), the respondent No. 1 has given a finding that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be stretched beyond the relief sought by him in the earlier applications filed before the Tribunals which were decided vide order dated 12.4.2007.
11. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (supra), we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal/respondent No. 1.
Hence finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.