Point of Law: Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to grant One Time Settlement or for re-scheduling of loan or to fix installments, save and except, in exceptional cases, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned notice dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the One Time Settlement Scheme in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner in the year, 2005 raised a house loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents-Bank. However, it appears that he did not pay either the principal nor the interest accrued on such principle, constraining the Bank to issue a Recovery Notice for recovery of Rs.26,14,436/-. The petitioner approached the Bank Manager, who in turn directed the petitioner to appear before the Collector (Recovery) on 24.03.2022.

3. The petitioner appeared on the said date, when respondent No. 3 asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in his loan account towards One Time Settlement. The petitioner failed to do so, constraining the Bank to issue a notice to appear before the Collector (Recovery) and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the considered view that it is not proper to the Court to interfere in such matters relating to recovery of loan. Such matters are contractual in nature and writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy for this. A writ would normally lie when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record or there is violation of law. No writ lies merely for directing One Time Settlement or directing re-scheduling of the loan or fixing installment in connection with the loan. It is only bank or the financial institutions, which granted the loan that can re-schedule it or fix One Time Settlement or grant installments. The Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant One Time Settlement or for re-scheduling of the loan or to fix installments, save and except, in exceptional cases, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

5. There are abundant of authorities in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the respondents and there is failure on the part of the respondents to discharge the statutory obligation. The Court cannot issue any direction to a party to enter into a compromise or settlement, by the very nature of thing or settlement, involves consent and it is voluntary act of the parties. In a matter where creditor is enforcing his liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by him, more particularly, when the debtor has not even paid a single paisa towards outstanding loan amount.

6. No doubt, Article 226 of the Constitution on its plain language states that the writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing fundamental right or for “any other purpose”. However, by judicial interpretation, the word “any other purpose” have to be interpreted for enforcement of legal right or purpose of legal duty.

7. In the instant case, the writ petitioner has vaguely prayed for mandamus to the bank to grant One Time Settlement but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our considered view, no such mandamus can be issued in the instant case and hence, the writ petition cannot be entertained.

8. The instant petition is clearly not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine, so also pending applications, if any.