ORDER: The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to OTS proposal by its letter dated 16.1.2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s OTS proposal submitted on 24.11.2005. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that the ‘one time settlement’ proposal submitted on 24.11.2005 was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 3.9.2005. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the light of Secs.21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India have statutory force and therefore the first respondent cannot reject the petitioner’s ‘one time settlement’ proposal by one line order. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in Canara Bank v. P.R.N.Upadhyaya, A.I.R.1998 S.C.3000 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, A.I.R.2001 S.C.3095. 4. As against the above submission Mr.F.B. Benjamin George, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the so called guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India have no statutory force inasmuch as such guidelines were not issued either under Sec.21 or under Sec.35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. Learned counsel further contended that in any case in a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot insist for any such direction to the respondent/Bank to consider any proposal for one time settlement. Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in Digivision Electronics Limited v. Indian Bank, (2005)3 C.T.C.513 and Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v. Millenium Business Solutions (P) Limited, (2004)5 C.T.C.689. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. On a perusal of the guidelines dated 3.9.2005 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, I find that the said guidelines do not refer to either Sec.21 or Sec.35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, or state any terms contained therein. A further reading of the various terms contained in the guidelines would show that they are not in consonance with the terms contained in the above referred two provisions viz., Secs.21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. A further reading of the various terms contained in the guidelines would show that they are not in consonance with the terms contained in the above referred two provisions viz., Secs.21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. The guidelines are more in the nature of providing enabling situations either for the bank or for any borrower to seek for settlement of a loan transaction, and for recovery of non-performing assets below Rs.10 crores. Therefore, it is very difficult to hold that the guidelines dated 3.9.2005 issued by the Reserve Bank of India should be construed as one issued under Secs.21 or 25-A of the Banking Regulation Act. 7. As far as the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as reported in Canara Bank v. P.R.N.Upadhyaya, A.I.R.1998 S.C.3000 is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court has specifically mentioned that the circulars issued therein by the Reserve Bank of India were the circulars issued under Secs.21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, when the circulars were issued specifically under the relevant provisions, whatever observation given by the Honourable Supreme Court will definitely have greater implications in those circumstances. As a matter of fact, the guidelines with reference to which we are concerned are not the one issued either under Sec.21 of 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. It cannot also be held that merely because such guideline was issued by the Reserve Bank of India, it will have statutory force and that the respondents are bound to follow the said circular. 8. As far as the decision reported in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, A.I.R.2001 S.C.3095, is concerned from para.51 onwards, the Honourable Supreme Court has only laid down the proposition of law as regards the directions issued under Secs.21-A and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. In the light of the fact that the guideline with which we are concerned is not the one issued either under Sec.21 or 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, the ratio laid down in the above referred two decisions cannot be applied. 9. On the other hand, in the decision reported in Digivision Electronics Limited v. Indian Bank, (2005)3 C.T.C.513, the Division Bench has specifically held to the effect that the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot lie to alter the terms of the contract between the borrower and the banking institution. 9. On the other hand, in the decision reported in Digivision Electronics Limited v. Indian Bank, (2005)3 C.T.C.513, the Division Bench has specifically held to the effect that the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot lie to alter the terms of the contract between the borrower and the banking institution. The Division Bench has held as under: “Some of the learned counsels submitted that the Court should direct one time settlement or fixing of instalments or rescheduling the loan. In Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation v. Millennium Business Solutions (P) Limited, (2004)5 C.T.C.689, it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction since directing one time settlement or granting instalments is really rescheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles.” 10. Similarly, in the decision reported in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v. Millenium Business Solutions (P) Limited, (2004)5 C.T.C.689, the Division Bench has made it clear that under Art.226, the High Court cannot have any right to direct one time settlement or for rescheduling of loan or to fix instalments. 11. In the light of the above said legal position, the various submissions made on behalf of the petitioner with reference to its application dated 24.11.2005, where it has made several proposals for rescheduling the repayment of the loan and the respondents’ communication dated 16.1.2006 in rejecting the proposals made by the petitioner cannot hold good. In view of the above said conclusion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.