JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice date 8.6.2006 ( Annexure -2 ) by which the opposite parties - authorities have recalled the loan and asked the Petitioner to make the payment. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide letter dated 13.3.2002 the Petitioner was informed of sanction of loan for raising construction of his residential accommodation with certain conditions and the loan had to be repaid as per the terms incorporated in the schedule of repayment. Clause 11 thereof clearly stipulates that the opposite parties shall have the right to cancel/suspend/reduce the above loan limit or vary the rate of interest without assigning any reason. In pursuance thereof an agreement was entered into on 4.4.2002. 3. After raising construction of the house, the Petitioner did not make the payment as per the schedule of repayment and violated the terms of loan agreement dated 4.4.2002. He failed to make the remittances to the opposite parties. The opposite parties asked the Petitioner to make the payment of the entire outstanding dues which was to the tune of Rs. 2,96,515/- as on 30.1.2006. 4. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition and this Court vide its order dated 28.8.2006 restrained the opposite parties from taking any coercive measures against the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is not in a position to make the repayment. Therefore, this Court should direct the opposite Parties- authorities to reach at One Time Settlement ( hereinafter referred to as "OTS") and waive interest etc. and settle the matter. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the petition contending that it is beyond the competence of this Court to issue a direction to the opposite parties to reach the One Time Settlement. There is no such scheme which provides for such settlement. It is a plain case of enforcement of the terms and conditions incorporated in the bilateral agreement dated 4.4.2002 and as the Petitioner failed to make the payment of installments the opposite parties are entitled to make the recovery in accordance with law. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner failed to produce any statutory Rules or guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India providing for One Time Settlement in such matters. No reason could be furnished by the Petitioner's counsel for not making payment of installments in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement. It is a bilateral agreement which the Petitioner has entered into with the opposite parties with his eyes open. Therefore, opposite parties - authorities are entitled to make the recovery as per the terms of the agreement. We do not see any reason why the said agreement should not be enforced. 9. So far as issuance of direction to the opposite parties regarding OTS is concerned, it is beyond imagination of this Court as to under what circumstances such a direction can be issued. 10. The issue involved herein has been considered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad Court in M.M. Accessories and Another Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and Another 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh and Others, ; Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani Vs. Deputy Custodian-cum-managing Officer and Others, ; Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, ; and Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar and Others. 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 for 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. 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). 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. 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. 11. 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. 11. The Court further expressed its anguish upon entering into such an uncalled for OTS in an unwarranted case, observing that every person would like to get one-time settlement in his favour as every person likes to get his liability reduced and pay less than what he is liable to pay under the contract executed by him. 12. In Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another the Apex Court considered a similar issue and held as under: ...Regular payment is the rule and nonpayment due to extenuating circumstances is the exception. If the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time-frame, it will disturb the equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the need of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the instalment by a defaulter may stand in the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance.That basic feature cannot be lost sight of. A Corporation is not supposed to give loan and then to write it off as a bad debt and ultimately to go out of business. As noted above, it has to recover the amounts due so that fresh loans can be given fairness cannot be a one-way street. Corporations borrow money from the Government or other Financial Corporations and are required to pay interest thereon. Where the borrower has no genuine intention to repay and adopts pretests and ploys to avoid payment, he cannot make the grievance that the Corporation was not acting fairly, even if requisite procedures have been followed. 13. In view of the above, the Court has to be very conscious about recovery of public money and directions cannot be issued merely for asking. This is not a case where an inarticulate illiterate down trodden person had been given some benefit by a financial institution and because of his financial inability to pay the same directions may be issued to do equity in his favour. This is not a case where an inarticulate illiterate down trodden person had been given some benefit by a financial institution and because of his financial inability to pay the same directions may be issued to do equity in his favour. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 14. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The opposite parties are at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 15. I agree.