Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in Ref.No.VNR/LAO-3/2002-2003, dated 13.10.2003, and quash the same.) W.P.No.27404 of 2005 This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take further steps forthwith and pass suitable order regarding the one time settlement in pursuance of their communication in TIIC/LAO3/2004-05 dated 22.7.2004. 2. The case of the petitioner firm is that it is engaged in the manufacture of fire works and crackers and situated in the rural area in Kangarankottai village in Virudhunagar and it is a small scale Industry. The petitioner firm had availed term loan facility from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation at its branch office at Virudhunagar. The term loans availed are 1. TL No.43/717 for 6.5. lakhs and 2. TL No.43/781 for 7 lakhs for which the instalment periods were extended upto 1.4.2005 and 1.10.2006 respectively. Since the petitioner's factory faced with many problems due to the general recession in the market for fire works and the labour problems leading to heavy loss during the year 2001 and 2002 the factory was closed. However, the petitioner firm has been making payments whenever possible. However, due to the above mentioned difficulties, the firm could not pay the outstanding dues regularly and therefore, the loan account of the petitioner firm has become Non Performing Asset from 20.2.2002. Taking note of the difficulties faced by the petitioner firm, the first respondent Corporation had introduced One Time Settlement in consonance with the Reserve Bank guidelines to settle all Non Performing Assets. It is also the case of the petitioner firm that the second respondent by his communication, dated 22.7.2004, in reference TIIC/LA 03/2004-05, had informed the petitioner that it has been decided to give the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to contact the respondent regarding settling of the account under the One Time Settlement Scheme. The petitioner was interested in settling. Hence, the petitioner had contacted the respondent and the petitioner was directed to submit his requisition letter and it was submitted on 24.7.2004. The second respondent by his communication, dated 2.8.2004, asked the petitioner to remit the processing fee of Rs.10,000/- to process the request of One Time Settlement. The petitioner was interested in settling. Hence, the petitioner had contacted the respondent and the petitioner was directed to submit his requisition letter and it was submitted on 24.7.2004. The second respondent by his communication, dated 2.8.2004, asked the petitioner to remit the processing fee of Rs.10,000/- to process the request of One Time Settlement. Further, the second respondent in the same communication had also asked the petitioner firm to furnish the particulars and details regarding the balance sheet for the past three years, profit and loss account statement, the net worth statement of promoters, the details of credit facilities from other institutions and the details of statutory liabilities. The petitioner had sent Rs.10,000/- by way of demand draft as processing fee for processing the One Time Settlement Scheme on 16.8.2004 with a request to grant further time to furnish the other details required by the second respondent. The second respondent, on 31.8.2004, had asked the petitioner firm to submit the necessary particulars within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Based on which the necessary details were submitted by the petitioner firm, on 2.9.2004, sent by registered post to the second respondent. The petitioner firm was requested by the second respondent to be present before the branch settlement committee, on 30.11.2004, to consider the request for One Time Settlement Scheme. The petitioner also appeared before the committee and requested to apply the benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme in accordance with law and the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for Non Performing Asset. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to show his bona fide so that his request can be considered and orders be passed. The said amount was paid on 21.12.2004, but no further communication was received from the respondents in spite of several reminders being sent by the petitioner firm. In these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed to direct the respondents as prayed for. 3. The said amount was paid on 21.12.2004, but no further communication was received from the respondents in spite of several reminders being sent by the petitioner firm. In these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed to direct the respondents as prayed for. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was agreed by both the counsel representing the petitioner as well as the respondents that the petitioner would submit a fresh representation to the second respondent requesting for consideration under the One Time Settlement Scheme, based on the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, along with a payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, to be made by the petitioner firm to the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit the fresh requisition to the second respondent, for One Time Settlement, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on such representation within a period of eight weeks thereafter, taking into account the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for One Time Settlement Scheme, dated 22.11.2005, particularly, considering clauses 3 and 5 of the guidelines with regard to the payment and non-discretionary treatment. W.P.Nos.31072 and 1673 of 2003 5. All the issues raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.27404 of 2005 as well as the connected writ petitions Nos.31072 and 1673 of 2003 are left open to be agitated, if necessary, after the respondents have passed necessary orders on the representation made by the petitioner. 6. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.27404 of 2005, no further orders are necessary in the connected writ petitions namely Nos.31072 and 1673 of 2003. With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.