ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 31-7-2012 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. They are further seeking for a direction to the respondent-bank to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-7-2012 as at Annexure-C to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that it is carrying on the business of Hotel in Bangalore and had borrowed the amount from the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank had thereafter classified the account as Non-Performing Asset ('NPA' for short) and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 calling upon the petitioner to discharge the liability was issued on 23-9-2011. The petitioner sought for settling the dues under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' applicable to the petitioner under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for short, the 'MSME'). The RBI Circular dated 2-7-2012 was relied upon. The request of the petitioner has been rejected through the impugned endorsement dated 31-7-2012. The petitioner contends that it is an enterprise as defined in the guidelines which is entitled to the benefit under the guidelines. The grievance is that the respondent-bank has wrongly rejected the application. The contention is that the worth of plant and machinery alone requires to be taken into consideration for applying the scheme. Since the endorsement does not specify reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief. 2. The respondent-bank has filed the objection statement seeking to justify their action. The nature of the loan granted is not in dispute. The fact that the respondent-bank had announced an One Time Settlement of NPAs of MSME is not disputed. The circular is relied upon to contend that the petitioner does not fall under the category of MSME since the value of the assets i.e., the plant and machinery is Rs. 7.33 crores as per the audited accounts. The nature of business of the petitioner is also referred and in that regard, it is contended that when the scheme does not apply to the case of the petitioner, the respondent-bank was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner to consider their case under the said Regulations. 7.33 crores as per the audited accounts. The nature of business of the petitioner is also referred and in that regard, it is contended that when the scheme does not apply to the case of the petitioner, the respondent-bank was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner to consider their case under the said Regulations. In that view, the respondent has sought to contend that the outstanding being more than the permissible limit, it has been treated as NPA and the petitioner cannot claim for any relief in the instant petition. 3. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri B.M. Halaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Suryaprakash, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanj AIR 1952 SC 16 and in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers2010 (69) Kar. L.J. 16 (SC) : 2010 (4) Kar. L.J. 256 (SC) : (2010) 4 SCC 785 : (2010) 2 SCC (L and S) 133 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1201 : (2010) 30 VST 114 (SC) : 2010 AIR SCW 3277, would contend that the communication/endorsement dated 31-7-2012 (Annexure-E), on the face of it would not be sustainable since no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the request. The decision therein is to state that the public orders, publicly made in exercise of statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Further, when the order does not indicate the reasons, it cannot be thereafter justified by the affidavit or objection statement. In that view, it is contended that though the petitioner had satisfied the requirements as contemplated under the guidelines as at Annexure-E to the petition, the impugned communication does not refer to the reason for which the request of the petitioner has not been accepted. In that light, it is further contended that the petitioner satisfies the requirement under the guidelines inasmuch as it is a small industry and the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 5 crores. In that light, it is further contended that the petitioner satisfies the requirement under the guidelines inasmuch as it is a small industry and the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 5 crores. Even as per the guidelines relied on by the respondent-bank, the requirement as stated therein provides for the benefit to the petitioner which has not been appropriately considered. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent would however contend that though the impugned communication does not refer to the details of the consideration, the ultimate result therein to reject the request is justified in view of the reasons indicated in the objection statement and as seen from the guidelines itself. As such, the same does not call for interference. Reference is made to the scheme/guidelines issued by the respondent and it is contended that, the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement inasmuch as the audited statement itself would disclose that the plant and machinery is more than Rs. 7 crores i.e., beyond the limit of Rs. 5 crores. Taking into consideration the, nature of business of the petitioner as a hotel industry, the bifurcation of plant and machinery cannot be made. Hence, the decision is justified. 6. In the light of the above, the position of law that an order by itself should disclose reasons failing which it will disclose non-application of mind cannot be in dispute. However, if there was no contradictory facts on record, certainly to an extent, the explanation for the decision based on the guidelines itself would have been accepted herein. In the instant case, though the learned Counsel for the respondent refers to the circular/guidelines to indicate the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises as provided therein and contends that the petitioner does not answer the definition since the value of the plant and machinery is more than Rs. 7 crores, what is to be noticed is that the medium enterprise defined therein is where the investment in plant and machinery is more than Rs. 5 crores but does not exceed Rs. 10 crores. The certificate relied on by the petitioner at Annexure-J would indicate that it is a medium enterprise/service. 7 crores, what is to be noticed is that the medium enterprise defined therein is where the investment in plant and machinery is more than Rs. 5 crores but does not exceed Rs. 10 crores. The certificate relied on by the petitioner at Annexure-J would indicate that it is a medium enterprise/service. Though the date of issue of such certificate is referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent to contend that it was issued only on 16-4-2013, the fact that it was a medium enterprise even prior to that date will be prima facie the position which will depend on other materials also. If that be the position, whether it was a small or medium enterprise even prior to that is an issue which should have required factual determination at the hands of the respondent before coming to a conclusion on that aspect and that should have been reflected in the impugned communication itself with regard to the nature of consideration and conclusion thereof. Further, the petitioner has also relied on the extract at Annexure-K relating to the investment on equipments to contend that the plant and machinery for that purpose is below the limit relating to the Mahadevapura unit. Clause (1)(iv) of the guidelines is referred by the learned Senior Counsel to indicate that it specifies that there can be no clubbing of investments of different enterprises set up by the same person/company for the purpose of classification of micro, small and medium enterprises. 7. In that light, if these disputed questions relating to the status of the petitioner being a medium enterprise for availing the benefit under the guidelines was required to be considered and if as on the date of the consideration of the petitioner's request and issue of communication on 31-7-2012, the certificate as at Annexure-K was not available, certainly, it was incumbent on the respondent to consider in detail with regard to the fact situation to come to a conclusion that the petitioner does not fall under the category of MSME and it should have been evident in Annexure-E. Even in the objection statement, except referring to the extract of the audited statement and arriving at the conclusion that the value is more than Rs. 5 crores, the other factual determination made is not forth coming. 5 crores, the other factual determination made is not forth coming. Presently, the petitioner has relied on another extract of the details of the assets at Annexure-K to the petition. In that view, keeping in view the nature of the business being conducted by the petitioner in its different units and also taking note of the contents of the circular that the clubbing of investments is not provided, these aspects of the matter would require detailed consideration by the respondent-bank taking into consideration all materials that is required for the said purpose though the applicability or otherwise of the scheme itself cannot be decided herein at this juncture when these factual aspects needs to be taken into consideration in the background of the scheme provided to such of the enterprises enumerated therein. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgment in the case of Sardar Associates and Others v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others AIR 2010 SC 218 : 2009 AIR SCW 5886 : (2009) 8 SCC 257 , to contend that all schedule banks are bound by the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding One Time Settlement Scheme. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent would however contend that the same would not be applicable herein unless it is shown that the scheme is available and the person seeking the benefit of the scheme also satisfies the requirements. 10. On the legal aspect that such guidelines would be binding, there can be no dispute but as rightly pointed out, the scheme would become applicable when the same is in force and the conditions therein are satisfied. In that regard, I have already taken note of the rival contentions and have arrived at the conclusion that the factual determination is required in the instant case based on the materials on record to reconsider whether the petitioner answers the definition and on such consideration, if it is seen that the petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the MSME scheme, the guidelines would in any event be applicable as stated therein. 11. 11. Since the impugned demand at Annexure-E, dated 31-7-2012 does not refer to the reasons based on which the decision has been arrived at by the respondent-bank to come to a conclusion that the petitioner does not fall under the category of MSME, the same is liable to be quashed and the respondent-bank is to be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the representation dated 23-7-2012 taking into consideration the materials on record, arrive at a factual determination and thereafter pass appropriate orders. In the result, the following: Order (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The endorsement dated 31-7-2012 (Annexure-E) stands quashed. (iii) The respondent-bank shall reconsider the representation dated 23-7-2012 in accordance with the guidelines and as per law. (iv) Parties to bear their own costs.