B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the recovery citation dated 14-8-2008 and recovery certificate dated 3-7-2006 basically on two grounds,. e. the respondents be directed to reach the One Time Settlement with the petitioner and the respondents should not be permitted to make the recovery by issuing citation as arrears of land revenue once they have chosen to issue notice under Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the act 2002 ). ( 2 ) WE have heard Shri K. S. Bajpai holding brief of Shri Krishan Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Ashok bhatnagar for the Bank; Shri Tej Prakash for respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel shri C. K. Rai for respondent no. 3. So far as the issue of issuing direction to settle the matter by reaching One time Settlement is concerned cannot be accepted for the reason that no statutory provision has been brought to our notice wherein the respondent Bank is under a legal obligation to reach such a settlement. ( 3 ) THE issue involved herein has been considered by the Division Bench of this court in M. M. Accessories and Ann v. U. P. Financial Corporation and Anr. , (2002) 1 AWC 242 : (2002 All LJ 967), wherein the Court held that no direction can be issued to a party under the Statute where the duty is discretionary and authority, upon whom the duty vests, has exercised its discretion reasonably and within its jurisdiction. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Honble Apex court in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and ors. , AIR 1977 SC 2149 ; Lekhraj Satramdas lalvant v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, air 1966 SC 334 : Dr. Rai shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 ; and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, air 1973 SC 964 . , AIR 1977 SC 2149 ; Lekhraj Satramdas lalvant v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, air 1966 SC 334 : Dr. Rai shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 ; and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, air 1973 SC 964 . ( 4 ) IN respect of competence of the Court for issuing direction to reach OTS the Court held as under "what the petitioners want now is that their proposal lor one-time settlement, which contains terms advantageous to them, specially a rate of interest lesser than what they had agreed upon at the time of entering into the contract and disbursement of the loan. be accepted. The State Financial corporations Act, which governs the working of the upfc. does not contain any provision for entering into a one-time settlement. A Court cannot issue any direction to a party to enter into a compromise or settlement. By the very nature of things, a settlement involves consent and it is a voluntary act of the party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In a matter where a creditor is enforcing its liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by him whereby the claim of the creditor is reduced. " (Emphasis added ). ( 5 ) THE Court further observed as under : "industrialisation is prime requirement of the country for generating employment and economic upliftment of the people. . . . . . . . . . . If some favourable settlement is entered into, the industrial concern may continue with its activity and may be able to revive. Which particular course of action should be taken by the Financial Corporation, would depend upon a variety of factors. It is likely that the revival of an industrial concern may be in larger public interest. By way of example, if the industrial concern is employing a large workforce, its closure may throw a large number of persons out of employment. The industrial concern may be situated in a backward area which the Government wants to develop and its closure may have a serious adverse impact as it may deter other entrepreneurs in setting up industry in that area. The industrial concern may be situated in a backward area which the Government wants to develop and its closure may have a serious adverse impact as it may deter other entrepreneurs in setting up industry in that area. It may be carrying on a business which is of public utility and its closure may adversely affect a large cross-section of people. In these types of cases, the Financial Corporations, having regard to the public interest involved, may enter into a settlement so that the industrial concern may not be closed and the production activity may go on. There may be cases where the nature of the activity of the industrial concern may not be of such a character and its closure may not have any adverse impact of any significance. The need to enter into a settlement may also depend upon the fact as to how best the money of the Financial Corporation can be retrieved. " ( 6 ) THE Court further expressed its anguish upon entering into such a uncalled for OTS in a unwarranted case, observing that every person would like to get one-time settlement in his favour as every person like to get his liability reduced and pay less than what he is liable to pay under the contract executed by him. ( 7 ) SO far as the second Issue of election is concerned, it is pointed out by Shri bhatnagar that after the judgment of Honble supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , (2004) 4 SCC 311 : ( AIR 2004 SC 2371 ), by Amendment act No. 30 of 2004, certain provisos were inserted in Section 19 (1) of the Debt Recovery Tribunals Act and simultaneously Section 13 of the Act. 2002 has also been recast. While deciding the Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2006 in M/s. Transcore v. Union of india and Anr. , decided on 29-11-2006 : (reported in AIR 2007 SC 712 ), the Honble supreme Court considered the effect of the above referred two amendments and held as under :- "therefore, when Section 13 (4) talks about taking possession of the secured assets or management of the business of the borrower, it is because a right is created by the borrower in favour of the bank/fi when he takes a loan secured by pledge, hypothecation, mortgage or charge. For example, when a company takes a loan and pledges its financial asset, it is the duty of that company to see that the margin between what the company borrows and the extent to which the loan is covered by the value of the financial asset hypothecated is retained. If the borrower company does not repay, becomes a defaulter and does not keep up the value of the financial asset which depletes then the borrower fails in its obligation which results in a mismatch between the asset and the liability in the books of the bank/f. Therefore, Sections 5 and 9 talks of acquisition of the secured interest so that the balance sheet of the bank/fi remains clean. Same applies to immovable property charged or mortgaged to the bank/f. These are some of the factors which the Authorised officer of the bank/fi has to keep in mind when he gives notice under Section 13 (2) of the (Act 2002 ). Hence, equity, exists in the bank/fi and not in the borrower. Therefore, apart from obligation to repay, the borrower undertakes to keep the margin and the value of the securities hypothecated so that there is no mis-match between the asset-liability in the books of the bank/f. This obligation is different and distinct from the obligation to repay. It is the former obligation of the borrower which attracts the provisions of the (Act 2002) which seeks to enforce it by measures mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the (Act 2002), which measures are not contemplated by the DRT Act and, therefore, it is wrong to say that the two Acts provide parallel remedies as held by the judgment of the High Court in M/s. Kalyani Sales Co,. As stated, the remedy under the DRT Act falls short as compared to 2002 Act, which refers to acquisition and assignment of the receivables to the asset reconstruction company and which authorizes banks/fis to take possession or to take over management which is not there in the DRT Act, It is for this reason that (Act 2002) is treated as an additional remedy (Section 37), which is not inconsistent with the DRT Act. In the light of the above discussion, we now examine the doctrine of election. There are three elements of election, namely existence of two or more remedies; inconsistencies between such remedies and a choice of one of them. In the light of the above discussion, we now examine the doctrine of election. There are three elements of election, namely existence of two or more remedies; inconsistencies between such remedies and a choice of one of them. If any one of the three elements is not there, the doctrine will not apply. According to American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 25. page 652. if in truth there is only one remedy, then the doctrine of election does not apply. In the present case, as stated above, the (Act 2002) is an additional remedy to the DRT Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. " ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the doctrine of election is not applicable and the submissions so made is totally misconceived. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in absence of any statutory provisions or directions issued by the reserve Bank of India, the petitioners cannot seek any direction from this Court to the respondents for setting their matter entering into the One Time Settlement. Even on second Issue as the Honble Supreme court has held that the doctrine of election is not attracted in such case, we do not find any merit in the case. ( 10 ) THE petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. .