JUDGMENT : Per : K.J. Rohee, J 1. Heard Mr. C.G. Madkholkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate and Mr. Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3/Bank. None appears for respondent no.4. 2. In O.A. No.81/2001 (which was previously Special Civil Suit No.111/1991) the present petitioners, who were defendant nos. 7 and 8, filed an application for direction to the respondents-Bank to accept the proposal given by them for One Time Settlement (OTS) in accordance with the guidelines of RBI. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, by order dated 6.7.2006, rejected the application on the ground that those guidelines are issued to the Public Sector Banks and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a party to such type of settlement. The said order is under challenge. 3. It is not disputed that on 29.1.2003 the Reserve Bank of India issued revised guidelines for compromise settlement of chronic non-performing assets (NPAs) of public sector banks. There is no question of the Debt Recovery Tribunal being party to any settlement between the parties. What the present petitioners wanted was that the matter should be settled as per those guidelines. In fact, the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal should have considered as to whether those guidelines are applicable to the matter before him and if so, the matter should have been settled as per those guidelines. Instead of examining this position, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application by refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Thus, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order : O R D E R (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur with a direction to examine whether the revised guidelines dated 29.1.2003 are applicable to the matter before it and if so, to direct the parties to act as per the guidelines. (iii) Interim order passed in this writ petition to continue till the decision by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.