Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Ponniah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. Seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for consideration of the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.03.2013, for One Time Settlement of his loan, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,98,000/- from the second respondent bank on 12.01.2008 on condition that the said loan has to be repaid in 180 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.47,917/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner had repaid nearly a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. While so, the second respondent had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to the petitioner. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.4079 of 2012. After hearing both sides, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 30.03.2012, directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation for One Time Settlement and pass orders accordingly. Thereafter, as per the order of the Division Bench, though the petitioner had approached the second respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the second respondent has not accepted the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner had filed Cont. P.(MD) No. 638 of 2012. 4. It is seen that the Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 15.11.2012, made it clear that it was open to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank for negotiations and settlement. In the said order, the Division Bench has also recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, which reads as under: "4. Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank would submit that the order of this Court was complied with by the respondent by considering the representation and therefore, there is no question of disobedience of the order, much less, any wilful disobedience. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the officials of the bank would consider the claim of the petitioner for negotiations on merits." In view of the above, it is open for the petitioner as well as the respondents to settle the issue in accordance with law. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the officials of the bank would consider the claim of the petitioner for negotiations on merits." In view of the above, it is open for the petitioner as well as the respondents to settle the issue in accordance with law. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has no right to insist the respondent to accept his claims by way of One Time Settlement.