- (1.) The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction for the Respondent-Bank to accept the proposal of one time settlement on the basis of policy issued by Reserve Bank of India and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The Petitioner had sent the application, Annexure P-1, which was rejected by the Respondent-Bank on 20.3.2006, which the Petitioner has impugned before this Court through the present writ petition.
(2.) When this writ petition initially came up for hearing before Division Bench of this Court, the same was dismissed alongwith some other writ petitions as common question of law had been raised in all such petitions. The Division Bench of this Court had considered the issue whether a writ of mandamus could be issued, commanding the Respondent to settle the dues of the Petitioner in accordance with one time settlement scheme. The Court found that the scheme under consideration did not have any statutory flavour nor had any statutory route. It was, thus, held that the scheme did not create any legal right with corresponding duties with the parties, warranting issuance of direction by the Court in the nature of mandamus. This writ petition alongwith various other writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 5.11.2007.
(3.) The Petitioner had accordingly impugned this order by filing Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant the leave and ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: Leave granted. All the Petitioners have availed loan from the Respondent Financial Corporation and wanted one time settlement, based on the Reserve Bank of India guidelines/policy. The High Court passed an order dismissing the writ petition on the ground that Reserve Bank of India guidelines are not enforceable under law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners point out that this Court in M/s Sardar Associates and Ors. v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors., 2009 8 SCC 257, held that the broad policy decisions contained in the guidelines were required to be followed, the power of the Board of Directors to make division in terms of Clause 4 thereof would only be in relation to some minor matters which does not touch the broad aspects of the policy decision and in particular the one governing the non-discriminatory treatment. In view of the decision rendered by this Court, we feel that the matters require fresh look by the High Court and, therefore, we remit all these cases to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for considering afresh in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Parties are at liberty to raise their respective pleas.;