A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 31-7-2012 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. They are further seeking for a direction to the respondent-bank to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-7-2012 as at Annexure-C to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that it is carrying on the business of Hotel in Bangalore and had borrowed the amount from the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank had thereafter classified the account as Non-Performing Asset ('NPA' for short) and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 calling upon the petitioner to discharge the liability was issued on 23-9-2011. The petitioner sought for settling the dues under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' applicable to the petitioner under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for short, the 'MSME'). The RBI Circular dated 2-7-2012 was relied upon. The request of the petitioner has been rejected through the impugned endorsement dated 31-7-2012. The petitioner contends that it is an enterprise as defined in the guidelines which is entitled to the benefit under the guidelines. The grievance is that the respondent-bank has wrongly rejected the application. The contention is that the worth of plant and machinery alone requires to be taken into consideration for applying the scheme. Since the endorsement does not specify reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief.

2. The respondent-bank has filed the objection statement seeking to justify their action. The nature of the loan granted is not in dispute. The fact that the respondent-bank had announced an One Time Settlement of NPAs of MSME is not disputed. The circular is relied upon to contend that the petitioner does not fall under the category of MSME since the value of the assets i.e., the plant and machinery is Rs. 7.33 crores as per the audited accounts. The nature of business of the petitioner is also referred and in that regard, it is contended that when the scheme does not apply to the case of the petitioner, the respondent-bank was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner to consider their case under the said Regulations. In that view, the respondent has sought to contend that the outstanding being more than the permissible limit, it has been treated as NPA and the petitioner cannot claim for any relief in the instant petition.

3. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri B.M. Halaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Suryaprakash, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanj AIR 1952 SC 16 and in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers2010 (69) Kar. L.J. 16 (SC) : 2010 (4) Kar. L.J. 256 (SC) : (2010) 4 SCC 785 : (2010) 2 SCC (L and S) 133 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1201 : (2010) 30 VST 114 (SC) : 2010 AIR SCW 3277, would contend that the communication/endorsement dated 31-7-2012 (Annexure-E), on the face of it would not be sustainable since no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the request. The decision therein is to state that the public orders, publicly made in exercise of statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Further, when the order does not indicate the reasons, it cannot be thereafter justified by the affidavit or objection statement. In that view, it is contended that though the petitioner had satisfied the requirements as contemplated under the guidelines as at Annexure-E to the petition, the impugned communication does not refer to the reason for which the request of the pet