Judgment : S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioners Rice Mill comprised in Survey Nos.R.S.No.314/4A, 313/4A and 313/3 of Tindivanam Registration District to an extent of 1 acre and 13 cents mortgaged with the fourth respondent towards loans availed by the petitioner in order to settle it based on the petitioner's request dated 28.3.2014. 2. We have heard Mr.K.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3. The petitioner, being a borrower, availed the loan from the respondent-Bank and has not repaid the money to the Bank. The Bank has offered One Time Settlement and asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.16 lakhs, on or before 28.3.2013. 4. Mr.Benjamin George, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that the petitioner, without paying that amount, has paid only an amount of Rs.8 lakhs and the said Rs.8 lakhs is only towards reversal of interest. 5. The present prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner is asking for enforcement of One Time Settlement (OTS) towards a portion of the property being released and the same could be sold and the amount could be paid to the Bank. Since it is an administrative act, this Court cannot interfere with the administrative act of the Bank and that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS {[2010] 8 SCC 110}, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if he is aggrieved by the action of the Bank. Hence, we find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself, after hearing both the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.