1. - By the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, "the DRAT" hereinafter), so far it relates to adverse findings against the officials of the petitioner bank and requiring the management of the petitioner bank to take administrative action against its officials, have been sought to be quashed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 availed cash credit facility of Rs. 15 lac from Bhagat-Ki-Kothi Branch, Jodhpur of the petitioner bank on 22.01.2001 and executed the documents to that effect. The respondent No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the credit facility borrowed by the respondent No. 2, the borrower. However, on moving an application by the respondent No.2 the borrower, the cash credit facility was enhanced from Rs. 15 lac to Rs. 20 lac on 04.10.2001. The respondent No. 2 failed to repay the dues as per the terms of agreement and, therefore, the account of the respondent No.2 was classified as N.P.A., as per the Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act of 2002" hereinafter) was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 challenged the said notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4590/2003, which came to be disposed of in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India and thereafter the petitioner bank preferred an application No. 6/2003 before the respondent No. 1 DRAT for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,51,374.86p. Against the respondents No. 2 and 3. The recovery application filed by the petitioner bank came to be allowed by the respondent No. 1 DRAT vide order dated 01.10.2004 and a recovery certificate for Rs. 23,51,374.96p. was issued in favour of the petitioner bank along with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 26.12.2002 till realisation vide Annx. 1, During pendency of the proceedings, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted a compromise proposal and offered to deposit Rs. 16 lac as full and final settlement of account, whereas on the relevant date the total outstanding, amount was Rs. 23.50 lac against them; however the petitioner bank considered the said compromise proposal keeping in view the heavy outstanding dues against the respondents No. 2 and 3 and rejected the same by Annx.2 dated 09.02.2004. Being aggrieved by rejection of the compromise-proposal vide Annx. 2 dated 09.02.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1298/2004, which came to he disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2004 with a direction that if the respondents No. 2 and 3 deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank, the same would be considered by the petitioner hank sympathetically in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, vide Annx. 3. Instead of depositing 25% amount of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days, as directed by this Court vide order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application seeking modification of the order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004 and by the order dated 10.05.2004, the order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004 came to be modified, again directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and to submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank. The modification was virtually the extension of the period as the other conditions including deposit of 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days and permitting the respondents No. 2 and 3 to make a fresh proposal, remained intact