JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated January 20, 2006 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No. 2, and further for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1/the Bank settle loan account of the petitioner, as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines dated September 3, 2005 (Annexure P-2).
(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership Firm and was engaged in the business of spinning of yarn. It availed term loan facility of Rs. 43 lacs and cash credit facility of Rs. 30 lacs from respondent No. 1 in the year 1996. After availing that facility, it continued to make payment of the instalments, as per rules. However, in the year 1998-99, it became defaulter on account of losses suffered by it in the business. Respondent No. 1 filed original application (OA) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,09,66,098.71 along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum with quarterly rest. The application, thereafter, was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh and the same was allowed vide order dated August 26, 2003, recovery certificate, of the even date was also issued. The proceedings then continued before the Recovery Officer, respondent No. 2, who issued proclamation for sale, and three properties of the petitioner-Firm were ordered to be sold on November 10, 2005, November 11, 2005 and November 16, 2005 respectively. First property was auctioned for an amount of Rs. 9.35 lacs in favour of the added respondent and the second was auctioned for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs. (As per information available, the auction purchaser has moved the respondent No. 1 for refund of amount, deposited by him). In the meantime, Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines on September 3, 2005, offering one time settlement of non-performing assets (NPAs) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sector. The petitioner, being eligible, made a representation to respondent No. 1 on November 16, 2005, showing its willingness to settle its accounts, as per guidelines, and a further request was made to intimate it, the amount outstanding on the date, when the account was declared NPA, so that the petitioner could deposit 25% of the said amount as per guidelines Annexure P- 2. To show its bona fide, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash with the Bank, when that representation was made. In the meantime, as the proceedings were going on before the Recovery Officer, the petitioner, by moving an application, also deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- regarding property No. 1 and Rs. 10,60,000/- regarding property No. 2 with the Recovery Officer, respondent No. 2, on December 9, 2005. In the application Annexure P-4, it was specifically stated that the petitioner had made an offer to the respondent-Bank, to pay the out-standing amount as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines and had already paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on November 16, 2005. It was further prayed that the sale certificate be not issued in favour of the auction purchaser. When the petitioner failed to get any response from respondent No. 1, it sent another letter Annexure P-5 on December 15, 2005, wherein it was again brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount, as per 'One Time Settlement' scheme and keeping in view the said object, it had already deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Bank and Rs. 20.60 lacs with the Recovery Officer, which are lying deposited in a Bank. It was further mentioned in that letter that the petitioner would deposit the remaining amount, as per policy, issued by the Reserve Bank of India. By stating above mentioned facts, petitioner also moved an application before the Recovery Officer to adjourn the proceedings by stating that case of the petitioner for 'One Time Settlement' is under active consideration. That application was dismissed vide order dated January 20, 2006 (Annexure P-7) and it was observed by the Recovery Officer, respondent No. 2, that as the petitioner had not deposited the entire outstanding amount, i.e. Rs. 2,72,66,177/-, the auction could not be set aside. It was further ordered that the amount be returned to the petitioner. The matter was adjourned to January 27, 2006, for confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. At that stage, the petitioner came to this Court and the following order was passed on January 25, 2006 : "Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted, returnable on 16.3.2006. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount to be deposited in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 3rd September, 2005 for 'One Time Settlement' has already been deposited with the recovery Officer and petitioner's proposal for 'One Time Settlement' is under active consideration of the Bank. If that be so, we direct that till a final decision is taken by the Bank on the proposal made by the petitioner for 'One Time Settlement', the sale of the properties, put to auction, shall not be confirmed." In reply, filed by respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the settlement, as per 'One Time Settlement' scheme was offered to the petitioner with regard to two accounts, i.e., one of the petitioner and another of its sister concern, namely, M/s. V.M. Textile Mills. It was further stated that the settlement was composite in nature, i.e., not just with regard to account of the petitioner but also the account of M/s. V.M. Textile Mills. To say so, reference was made to the document Annexure R-1/1, which was sent to respondent No. 1-the Bank on June 21, 2006, by its headquarter. It is also coming out from the records that consequent to document Annexure R-1/1, a formal letter was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 intimating it that its loan accounts has been settled and the petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the settled amount on or before June 30, 2006. Admittedly, the letter Annexure A-1/1 was written on June 28, 2006. On June 30, 2006, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 intimating that Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by it, when application for One Time Settlement was moved. Rs. 21,60,000/- are lying deposited with the Recovery Officer in a Bank. The total amount as such comes to more than 25% of the settlement amount. It was requested that the said amount be adjusted and for the remaining amount, an undertaking was given that it would be paid within the stipulated period. Copy of the letter has been brought on record as Annexure A-2. In written- statement, it has further been said that as the petitioner failed to deposit 25% of the settlement amount, the settlement was cancelled and as such at present the petitioner is under an obligation to pay the entire amount decreed against it, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(3.) COUNSEL for the auction purchaser, Shri Chatrath, has stated that as he has deposited the entire amount, the auction regarding property No. 1 be not set aside.;