[2025:RJ-JP:18928] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3278/2025 Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Sp-1- 2316, Riico Industrial Area, Ramchandrapura, Sitapura Extension, Jaipur -302002 (Rajasthan), Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Vikas Jain Tijaria S/o Shri Ramesh Jain Tijaria Aged 53 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Through Secretary, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Chief General Manager, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur. 3. Bank Of India, Laxmi Complex Building, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001, Through Its Branch Manager. Having Its Head Office At Star House, C-5, G- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051, Through Its Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer. 4. Smt. Alpna Aneja, Assistant General Manager, Bank Of India, Laxmi Complex Building, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Falak Mathur & Ms. Lipi Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Shukla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order 24.02.2025 passed by the respondents by which [2025:RJ-JP:18928] (2 of 6) [CW-3278/2025] proposal of the petitioner for One Time Settlement (OTS) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14081/2024, the petitioner submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement along-with demand draft of Rs.7 Crores in pursuance of the guidelines/framework for compromise/ settlement. Learned counsel submits that as per the policy of Reserve Bank of India dated 08.06.2023, in respect of compromise/ settlement, it shall be ensured that the delegation of power for such approvals rests with an authority, which is at least one level higher in hierarchy than the authority vested with power to sanction the credit/investment exposure. Learned counsel submits that the sanctioning authority was Assistant General Manager and his higher authority was Zonal Manager but in the instant case the matter was first decided by the Assistant General Manager on 24.02.2025 and the same was referred to the Zonal Manager later on. Learned counsel submits that the Zonal Manager has not applied its own independent mind but he has approved the decision taken by the Assistant General Manager without even calling upon the petitioner for the purpose of settlement of outstanding dues. Learned counsel submits that, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Lastly, he submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding a bunch of petitions with the lead case of M/s. Pro Knits Versus The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & others (Special Leave Petition (C) No.7898/2024) vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:18928] (3 of 6) [CW-3278/2025] 01.08.2024, has held that it is mandatory & obligatory on the part of the Bank to follow the instructions and directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon other two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sardar Associates & others Versus Punjab & Sind Bank & Others reported in 2009 (8) SCC 257 and Devidayal Castings Private Limited Versus Haryana Financial Corporation and Another reported in 2022 (16) SCC 411. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the instant matter, the compromise/settlement proposal was not decided by the Assistant General Manager but the same was decided by the Zonal Manager vide order dated 24.02.2025. Learned counsel submits that the details were sought from the Assistant General Manager and, accordingly, a decision was taken by the Zonal Manager by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Learned counsel submits that subsequent to passing of the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, one more proposal was given by the petitioner for settlement of the dispute for a sum of Rs.35 Crores, but the same was also rejected. Hence, under the changed circumstances, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 5. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Bijnor & Others Versus Meenal Agarwal & others reported in (2021) 9 SCR 416 has held that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the [2025:RJ-JP:18928] (4 of 6) [CW-3278/2025] High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing any financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of OTS scheme to a borrower. Learned counsel submits that a discretion has been left with the commercial wisdom of the bank whose amount is involved and it is the discretion of the concerned bank whether to grant the benefit of OTS scheme or not to the borrower, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 08.06.2023 indicates that in respect of the compromise settlement, the delegation of power of such approvals lies with the authority which is at least one level higher in hierarchy than the authority vested with power to sanction the credit/investment exposure. 8. In the instant case, the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner by the Assistant General Manager and his higher authority, as per the guidelines of RBI was Zonal Manager. It appears that in the instant case when the petitioner submitted his proposal, the same was decided by the Assistant General Manager on 24.02.2025 and a communication in this regard was sent to the petitioner vide reference letter No.JPR/ADV/LM/24-25/213. It appears that with the subsequent letter bearing No.JPR/OTS/LM/2024-25/214 dated 24.02.2025, the matter was referred to the Zonal Manager and on the very same day, the Zonal Manager has taken a decision i.e. on 24.02.2025 rejecting the offer/proposal given by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:18928] (5 of 6) [CW-3278/2025] 9. With no stretch of imagination, it can be believed or relied that the decision was taken by the Zonal Manager by applying its own mind but the same was taken on the basis of letter/recommendation dated 24.02.2025 sent by the Assistant General Manager. By doing so, the respondents have not complied with the mandate provided under Clause 6(i) of the circular dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. This Court is not going into the controversy as to whether the respondent-Bank is bound by the proposal/offer given by the petitioner or not. 10. Since the respondent is a commercial institution, they can use their discretion to settle the matter at an appropriate amount. But, in any case, the decision is required to be taken by the authority which is one level higher than the authority vested with the power to sanction the credit/investment exposure. 11. On this count alone, the matter is remitted to the respondents with clear and specific direction to place the matter of the petitioner before the authority which is one higher level in hierarchy than the authority vested with the power of sanctioning the credit/investment exposure. The petitioner would be at liberty to give one more proposal for settlement of dispute along-with demand draft of Rs.7 Crores within a period of three weeks from today. 12. The respondents are directed to consider the One Time Settlement proposal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and they are also directed to consider the aforesaid amount towards the payment of principle amount within a period of three weeks thereafter. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:18928] (6 of 6) [CW-3278/2025] 14. For a period of six weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/340