JUDGMENT S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents/Bank to consider his representation dated 12.09.2013 which was given to the 1st respondent herein for settling the dues to the Bank in One Time Settlement within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a borrower and having obtained the Overdraft Miscellaneous Credit Facilities from the respondents/Bank to the tune of Rs.18,85,000/-in the year 2004 and mortgaged his residence as a security and since he committed default in repayment of the same, the respondents/Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by issuing notice u/s.13 [2] on 09.01.2012. The Bank had also taken possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice u/s.13[4] of the SARFASEI Act on 27.05.2013. Challenging the said Possession Notice, the petitioner filed SA.No.33/2013 before the DRT-II, Chennai and the Tribunal has passed a conditional order on 21.06.2013 directing the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with the respondents/Bank on or before 18.07.2013 and to report compliance on the next day, i.e., on 19.07.2013 and the Bank was also directed not to proceed further against the petitioner till 19.07.2013. Not complying with the conditional order of the DRT-II, Chennai, and after the lapse of the time prescribed u/s.18 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DRAT, Chennai, in AIR [SA] No.53/2014 during February 2014, challenging the order passed by the DRT-II, Chennai. The said appeal was also dismissed by the DRAT on 20.02.2014 on the ground of delay. In the meantime, the petitioner has also sent a representation on 12.09.2013 to the Bank seeking for the One Time Settlement of his dues. Since the representation sent by the petitioner did not evoke any response and having not challenged the dismissal order of the DRAT dated 20.02.2014, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking indulgence of this Court by issuing direction to the respondents/Bank to accept the OTS proposal of the petitioner. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the documents made available on record. 4. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the documents made available on record. 4. Admittedly, in the appeal filed by the petitioner in SA.No.33/2013 before the DRT-II, Chennai, challenging the Possession Notice dated 27.05.2013, a conditional order was passed and the petitioner having not complied with the said conditional order, said to have challenged the order of the DRT-II, Chennai, before the DRAT, belatedly, by way of an appeal in AIR [SA] No.53/2014 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the DRAT on 20.02.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that his representation seeking for OTS has not been considered by the respondents/Bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated, time and again, that One Time Settlement is not a matter of right of the parties to claim and to come before this Court in order to get a direction from this Court to the Bank. Further the Apex Court has held that it is for the Bank and the borrower / guarantor to negotiate and decide the issue of OTS and it is the prerogative right of the Bank either to accept, reject or to extend OTS to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has not merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.