ORDER

(1) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:

“(i) That, the respondent may kindly be directed not to make coercive action in respect of the mortgaged property.

(ii) That, the respondent bank may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,27,000/- in terms of the OTS settlement and further be directed to settle the account of the petitioner.

(iii) That, any other suitable direction may kindly be issued.

(2) At the outset the counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is by way of mercy petition seeking indulgence of this Court to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent–Bank to positively consider the writ petitioner’s application for One Time Settlement (OTS) in view of the fact that out of total liability of Rs.54 Lakhs, only Rs.2 Lakhs and odd is outstanding, which could not be deposited due to after effect of Covid-19 pandemic and now since the petitioner is ready to deposit the said amount along with interest/charges the respondent-Bank may take a practical view, while considering the proposal. He placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Ganga Foundations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Bank of India passed in SLP No. 14979-14988/2021 on

02/03/2022.

(3) On 31/03/2022 learned counsel appearing for respondent/Canara Bank had sought time to seek instructions in respect of outstanding as it existed on that day after charging all relevant penal interest/charges etc and in pursuance thereof while submitting reply to the writ petition informed this Court that the outstanding as of today is Rs.33,26,186/- and not Rs.2,27, 000/- as contended by the petitioner and now under its existing policy it is precluded from allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount agreed under the OTS, as it ceased to exist on 15/04/2021 and the Respondent Bank has no power to accept any amount under the same, towards full and final settlement of the loan amount. Apart from the above submissions counsel appearing for the Respondent/Bank argued that it is not apposite to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the wake of availability of remedy under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and since on earlier occasions also the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking relief from the recovery proceedings, now after exhausting the remedies there, approaching this Hon’ble Court is nothing but forum shopping, with an intent to delay the recovery proceedings, thus, as it amounts to abuse of process of law, any indulgence of this Court is not warranted and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Lastly placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pheonix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & others CA No.257-259/2022 dated 12/01/2022 and Union of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(4) Heard the parties and perused the record.

(5) From the record it is reflected that the Petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.72,00,000/- from the respondent/Bank and due to its non-payment the account was declared NPA on 30/06/2018. On 05/05/2018 One Time Settlement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent/Bank for payment of Rs.87.25 Lakhs towards full and final settlement, but the petitioner failed to pay the said amount and prayed for extension, which was granted to the petition till 30/11/2018, but petitioner again failed to pay the OTS amount and therefore the OTS lapsed. On 26/11/2018 the respondent/Bank moved Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs.91,33,447/-. Vide order dated 07/06/2019 the Tribunal passed an order of recovery of Rs.91,33,447/- alongwith interest. Though there was