The discretion of financial institutions in granting one-time settlements and rehabilitation, the limitations on the court's power to issue writs, and the non-enforceability of purely administrative orders in a court of law.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 4-10-1994 Annexure 12 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 U. P. Financial Corporation to prepare a rehabilitation package of the petitioner and to submit it to the respondent No. 3 for placing it before respondent No. 4.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) WE have carefully perused the writ petition and counter and rejoinder affidavits.

( 4 ) THE petitioner took a loan from the U. P. Financial Corporation and paid certain amount as stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that the Corporation disbursed a total of Rs. 9,19. 600/- to the petitioner in a period of two years one month. The details as alleged by the petitioner are given in paragraphs 14 to 20 of the writ petition which need not be repeated here. It is alleged by the petitioner that as a result of the disbursement schedule the petitioner suffered heavy loss as the corporation delayed disbursement. Since 1990 the Corporation started issuing notices to the petitioner that the loan of the Corporation should be paid immediately and on 3-12-1991 the Corporation issued notice under Section 29 of the Act recalling all the loans of the Corporation and directing that a sum of Rs. 12,34,529/- was due vide notice dated 3-12-1991 Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Thereafter on 25-2-1992 the Corporation again wrote to the petitioner that the possession of the petitioners unit will be taken over by the Corporation and if the petitioner wishes to discuss the matter he may contact the Corporation on any working day. On 28-2-1992 the petitioners representatives went to the Assistant regional Manager of the Corporation and deposited four cheques and promised to deposit further amounts. True copy of the letter of the Corporation dated 25-2-1992 is annexure 5 to the writ petition. True copy of the letter of the petitioner dated 28-2-1992 is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner then received a letter dated 3-7-1992 from the Corporation stating that the possession of the unit would be taken on 10-7-1992 vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IN paragraph 29 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner has been declared as a sick unit vide order dated 20-8-1993 vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 30 of the writ petition that the Reserve Bank of India has 1s-sued guidelines with regard to rehabilitation of sick small scale units and the unit of the petitioner is covered by the guidelines. Photocopy of the guidelines is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. In paragraph 31 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner has submitted the rehabilitation package on 27-2-1992 and pressed the respondent-Corporation for acceptance of the same. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent no. 3 on 6-8-1994 and a red card was issued to the petitioner on 17-8-1994. It is alleged in paragraph 32 of the writ petition that the State Government has taken a policy decision and issued a G. O. dated 3-5-1994 wherein the State Government has framed rules for declaration of a unit as a sick unit and for a rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner applied for rehabilitation but to no avail and instead a recovery certificate has been issued.

( 6 ) AN amendment application has also been filed by the petitioner. In this amendment application reference has been made to several developments subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 36-D that the Regional Rehabilitation committee held a meeting on 10-3-1997 and the petitioner had submitted a rehabilitation proposal to it dated 17-3-1997. Thereafter on 24-1-1998 a meeting was again held under the Chairmanship of Commissioner, kanpur Division and the committee took a decision to rehabilitate the petitioners unit and appointed the Corporation as th