1. Heard Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent and Sri M.P. Ugle, learned counsel representing the second respondent.

2. The counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of an affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, respective stands taken by R1 and R2 in the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition in the light of Sections 21, 35 E of the Banking Regulation Act, 1995 and also in the light of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also would maintain that the petitioner is bound to succeed in the Writ Petition even on the strength of the doctrine of 'the legitimate expectation'. The learned counsel would conclude that under law and also on the ground of equity suitable directions are to be issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner.

3. Sri Narender Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and would maintain that these guidelines are not enforceable in Court of law and hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Sri Ugle , learned counsel representing the second respondent had taken up the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition and also had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavits and specifically pointed out to several decisions covered in his favour and would maintain that in the light of the same, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material produced before this Court.

6. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 4.7.2006. The present Writ Petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the first respondent bank on the representation dated 28.3.2006 of the petitioner for grant of OTS-2005 being violation of Mandatory Guidelines under OTS 2005 of the second respondent as also discriminatory, indiscrete and contrary to Sections 21 and 35 A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and also in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the first respondent Bank to accept amount from the petitioner as per OTS-2005 Scheme for full and final settlement of NPA C.C.A/c No. 01600006246 and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

7. The first respondent and the second respondent filed their counter affidavits.

8. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the first respondent is a Statutory Corporation constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, being an instrumentality of the State, would fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

9. It is also stated that the second respondent is a Statutory Corporation constituted under Reserve Bank of India Act, for the purpose of taking over the Management of the Currency from the Central Government and of carrying on the business of Banking besides being the Licensing, Controlling and Monitoring Authority of Commercial and Cooperative Banking outfits and their business. Its entire capital is owned and held by the Government of India and thus it is an 'instrumentality of the State' in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been engaged in the wholesale dealing of Sugar, food grains as also in commission agency from the year 1984.

11. The first respondent bank granted a cash credit facility of Rs. 72 lakhs to the petitioner on 24.2.2001 vide A/c No. 01600