Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the recovery citation dated 14.8.2008 and recovery certificate dated 3.7.2006 basically on two grounds, i.e. the respondents be directed to reach the One Time Settlement with the petitioner and the respondents should not be permitted to make the recovery by issuing citation as arrears of land revenue once they have chosen to issue notice under Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the ‘Act 2002’).

2. We have heard Shri K.S. Bajpai holding brief of Shri Krishan Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioners; Shri Ashok Bhatnagar for the Bank; Shri Tej Prakash for respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel Shri C.K. Rai for respondent No. 3. So far as the issue of issuing direction to settle the matter by reaching One Time Settlement is concerned cannot be accepted for the reason that no statutory provision has been brought to our notice wherein the respondent Bank is under a legal obligation to reach such a settlement.

3. The issue involved herein has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in M.M. Accessories & Anr. v. U.P. Financial Corporation & Anr., (2002) 1 AWC 242, wherein the Court held that no direction can be issued to a party under the Statute where the duty is discretionary and authority, upon whom the duty vests, has exercised its discretion reasonably and within its jurisdiction. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 2149; Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvant v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334; Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210; and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964.

4. In respect of competence of the Court for issuing direction to reach OTS the Court held as under :

“What the petitioners want now is that their proposal for one-time settlement, which contains terms advantageous to them, specially a rate of interest lesser than what they had agreed upon at the time of entering into the contract and disbursement of the loan, be accepted. The State Financial Corporations Act, which governs the working of the UPFC, does not contain any provision for entering into a one-time settlement. A Court cannot issue any direction to a party to enter into a compromise or settlement. By the very nature of things, a settlement involves consent and it is a voluntary act of the party....................In a matter where a creditor is enforcing its liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by him whereby the claim of the creditor is reduced.” (Emphasis added)

The Court further observed as under:

“Industrialisation is prime requirement of the country for generating employment and economic upliftment of the people..............If some favourable settlement is entered into, the industrial concern may continue with its activity and may be able to revive. Which particular course of action should be taken by the Financial Corporation, would depend upon a variety of factors. It is likely that the revival of an industrial concern may be in larger public interest. By way of example, if the industrial concern is employing a large workforce, its closure may throw a large number of persons out of employment. The industrial concern may be situated in a backward area which the Government wants to develop and its closure may have a serious adverse impact as it may deter other entrepreneurs in setting up industry in that area. It may be carrying on a business which is of public utility and its closure may adversely affect a large cross-section of people. In these types of cases, the Financial Corporations, having regard to the public interes