JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - The writ petition challenges the rejection of a claim for consideration for One Time Settlement (for short, “OTS”), a proposal sought by the petitioner with the respondent-Bank for settling the loans which the petitioner had availed form the respondent-Bank. The proposals were required to be undertaken for consideration pursuant to direction issued in CWP No.15237 of 2005 dated 31.01.2008. The direction contained in the order was in such a situation where on the previous occasions, the Bank had considered the scheme for OTS but on every occasion, the settlement did not come through, when the petitioner was pressing for adjustment of some amounts allegedly due by the Bank to the petitioner way of rent. The guidelines of OTS also were periodically issued by the Reserve Bank of India first in the year 2000, later in the year 2003 and still later in the year 2005 that required formulations to be applied. At the time when Division Bench was issuing the direction, the Court observed that the Bank shall consider the claims of OTS within a period of one months in the light of the schemes instructions of the Reserve Bank of India dated 03.09.2005. 2. At least at the time when the Court passed the order on 31.09.2005, there was no controversy that the petitioner industry was not entitled to consideration of settlement under OTS Scheme. The consideration of OTS settlement is not merely an act of charity of a creditor bank but governed by instructions of Reserve Bank of India, which has statutory force, as laid down by the Supreme Court in a decision Sardar Associated v. Punjab & Sind Bank, 2010(1) I.S.J. (Banking) 1. 3. It appears that when the representation had been given, as directed by this Court in Division Bench ruling, it fell to be rejected by the Bank through the impugned order passed on 02.06.2008 containing the reasoning, inter alia that the Reserve Bank of India guideline indicated that the scheme was applicable only for SME category (Small, Medium Enterprises Category) and that the petitioner did not qualify for consideration under the scheme. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had himself sought for clarification under RTI Act form the Reserve Bank of India whether the nature of activity that the petitioner was carrying on qualified for the India has given a reply to the petitioner as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sr. Query Reply No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Whether cinema halls with an The government of India have enacted the micro, investment of Rs.10 Lakh to Rs.5 small and Medium Enterprises Development crore in plant and machinery are (MSMED) Act, 2006 on June 16, 2006 which was covered under the definition of notified on October 2, 2006. Accordingly, our SME under the RBI OTS policy circular RPCD. PLNFS. BC.No.63/2006-07 of 2005. dated April 4, 2007 was issued giving the modified definition as or the MSMED Act and not under the RBI OTS policy of September, 2005. Further, in terms of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India communication bearing No.E.21(1)/2006-Pt dated July 9, 2008, service activities such as Entertainment Services (including theatres, live bands and circus services are to be treated as micro, small or medium service enterprises under MSME Act, 2006, subject to the ceilings on investments as laid down under Para 3(b) of our above circular dated April 4, 2007, a copy of which is enclosed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Learned counsel, therefore, would contend the rejection made by the respondent taking up a plea is not only inconsistent with their own earlier stand and their overtures but also against the clarification given by the Reserve Bank of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank supports the impugned order by referring to an Intra Bank instruction issued on 19.09.2009 purporting to reproduce the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India dated 18.09.2009. It is contended that list did not specifically include theatre industry as SME and hence not eligible for consideration for OTS. 6. I have not the benefit of the Reserve Bank of India circular dated 18.09.2009 referred to the letter dated 19.09.2009. I have also no information about how the list has been prepared as found in the letter of the Bank. 6. I have not the benefit of the Reserve Bank of India circular dated 18.09.2009 referred to the letter dated 19.09.2009. I have also no information about how the list has been prepared as found in the letter of the Bank. If there is a direct reply by the Reserve Bank of India in response to the petitioner’s query that theatre industry will also come within the entertainment service that would include theatres, live bands and circus services and clarified as micro, small and medium enterprises under MSME Act, 2006 it is futile to refer to an intra-bank instruction to disqualify the petitioner’s entitlement. The denial by respondent is unjustified, when this objection has not been taken by the Bank at any time and when there was a specific direction by a Division Bench to which the Bank was a party that the petitioner’s liability under the loan shall be considered under 2005 Policy. 7. The impugned order of respondent is quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner’s proposals in the light of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines for consideration of OTS. 8. The Division Bench has already stayed the proceedings before the DRT and given a direction for consideration of the OTS proposal. The same directions will continue till final decision is taken of OTS policy by the respondent. 9. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ----------------