Sri Pitambar Das vs Authorized Officer/Chief ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3676 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sri Pitambar Das vs Authorized Officer/Chief ..... ... on 5 February, 2025

Author: S. K. Panigrahi

Bench: S. K. Panigrahi

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               WP(C) No.1703 of 2025
        Sri Pitambar Das                      .....                 Petitioner
                                                                Mr. Tuna Sahu,
                                                                    Advocate
                                       -versus-
        Authorized Officer/Chief              .....           Opposite Parties
        Manager, State Bank of                              Mr. Subrat Mishra,
        India, Stressed Assets                              Advocate for Bank
        Recovery Branch,
        Madhupatna, Cuttack &
        Ors.
                                       CORAM:
                THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order                                   ORDER
No.                                    05.02.2025

 01.           1.    This     matter   is    taken    up      through      hybrid

               arrangement.

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has

challenged the action of the Opposite Party

No.1/Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, State Bank of

India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Madhupatna &

Opposite Party No.2/The Chief Manger, State Bank Of

India, Dhenkanal Main Branch in not disposing of his

One Time Settlement (OTS) application dated 30.01.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioner has approached the Bank for OTS of his loan

dues on 30.01.2024, which is strongly disputed by the

learned counsel for the Bank.

4. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the

OTS scheme is not a right of a loanee but it is purely

dependent on the availability of the OTS Scheme and also

for meeting of the norms set forth by the Bank. The High

Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should refrain from issuing writ of

mandamus directing to grant benefit under the OTS

Scheme which is clearly enunciated in the Judgment in

Bijnor Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. -vrs. Meenal Agarwal1

and the same has reiterated in case of State Bank of India

-vrs.- Arvindra Electronics Private Limited2. In Meenal

Agarwal (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"(i) No borrower can, as a matter of right pray for a grant for the benefit of One-Time Settlement scheme:

(ii) No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the financial institution/ bank to positively grant a benefit of OTS to a borrower;

(2023) 2 SCC 805

(2023) 1 SCC 540

(iii) The grant of benefit of OTS Scheme is subject to the eligibility criteria; and the guidelines issued from time to time."

5. In such view of the matter and taking into the

precedents cited above, this Writ Petition is disposed of

directing the Petitioner to approach the Bank with a fresh

proposal with a descent amount, which is acceptable by

the Bank. In such event, the Bank may consider the same

as per law.

6. This Writ Petition is , accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. S. K. Panigrahi) Judge

Gitanjali