JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - The petitioner-borrower initially availed loan facility of Rs. 1.35 crores from the respondent-Bank, which was later on increased to Rs. 1.85 crores. The petitioner could not pay the due installments and its account was classified as N.P.A in the year 2014. The petitioner had mortgaged some immovable property as a security for the loan account. The respondent bank twice made efforts to sell the secured assets, but it failed to do so. On the third occasion, the reserve price of the assets was Rs. 2.30 crores. The bank has received a bid and it can be safely inferred that the bidder has offered more than Rs. 2.30 crores. Before the bid could be opened or a decision with regard to acceptance thereof could be taken, the petitionerborrower approached this Court, primarily with the plea that he is willing to pay the amount, as may be decided in terms of One Time Settlement. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1.85 crores with the Registry of this Court and in addition, about Rs. 45 lacs was paid to the bank. 2. As per the Statement of Account referred to by learned Counsel for the Bank, a sum of Rs. 2.35 crores is payable by the petitioner as on 26.10.2018. Meanwhile, the bidder has also sought his impleadment as a party respondent. 3. The only issue, which survives for consideration in this case and as noticed by the Court on 11th October, 2018 iswhether the petitioner''s request for One Time Settlement, which is stated to be pending consideration before the Bank, should be re-considered and if not, are there valid and justifiable reasons to deny the benefit of One Time Settlement Policy of the Bank? 4. With reference to that question, the Bank has filed supplementary affidavit dated 24th October, 2018, para-3 whereof reads as under:- "That according to the NPA management policy the settled amount should not be less than the net present value of realizable value of available securities. In this case, if the Bank settles the case under the NPA management Policy, the settlement amount will be less than the net present value of the realizable value of the available securities of A-1 City Walk. It will be in violation of the Policy so the Bank cannot make any settlement. Moreover the recovery of public money is involved. In this case, if the Bank settles the case under the NPA management Policy, the settlement amount will be less than the net present value of the realizable value of the available securities of A-1 City Walk. It will be in violation of the Policy so the Bank cannot make any settlement. Moreover the recovery of public money is involved. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has squandered the chance of restructuring the loan in past by not fulfilling its commitment." 5. Though, the above reproduced reasons assigned by the Bank may not be fully justified to deny the benefit of One Time Settlement to the petitioner, nevertheless, the petitioner''s claim for consideration of its case under the One Time Settlement has to be considered in the light of the Scheme itself. A copy of One Time Settlement Policy has been placed on record and its clause 7 reads as under:- "7. COMPROMISE/SETTLEMENTS. A compromise should be negotiated settlement, which would ensure recovery of the dues to the maximum extent possible at minimum expense and within shortest possible time frame. While compromise settlements proper distinction will have to be made between willful defaulters and defaulters due to circumstances beyond their control. While in case of the former, a tough stand has to be taken, in latter cases a moderated view is to be taken. Relief Proposals for waiving-off interest* The relief proposals/settlements of such accounts where the borrower become defaulter due to circumstances beyond their control: 1. Waiving-off interest if the borrower has expired. The rebate may be considered from the date of death provided the death is reported to the bank well in time and loan is settled within twelve months from the death of the loanee keeping in view the economical condition of the legal heirs. 2. Waiving-off interest in case of destruction of asset created out of loan proceeds and rendering the asset non income generating keeping in view the economical condition of the legal heirs. 3. Waiving-off interest if the borrower has rendered handicapped/ incapable to generate any income duly supported by Medical Board, keeping in view the economical condition of the legal heirs. Compromise/settlement for NPA accounts:* .. A compromise/settlement be made only if the account has been classified as doubtful or loss assets. However, if there are any genuine reasons compromise/settlement be made in case of a sub-standard account also. Compromise/settlement for NPA accounts:* .. A compromise/settlement be made only if the account has been classified as doubtful or loss assets. However, if there are any genuine reasons compromise/settlement be made in case of a sub-standard account also. Compromise/Settlement of NPA''s will be negotiated in keeping in mind the following key parameters. Realizable value & marketability of securities charges to the Bank if the advance/loan is secured. Income/Aggregate means of borrowers/guarantors. Age of NPA. Legal position of the Bank." 6. Since the petitioner''s case does not fall at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of "Relief Proposals for waiving-off interest", no direction to waive-off the interest can be issued to the Bank. 7. As regards the second part of the Compromise/Settlement, namely, in respect of N.P.A accounts, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there were genuine reasons and the case of the petitioner falls in the category of "sub-standard account", as it was classified as NPA way back in the year 2014. It appears to us that the request of the petitioner regarding settlement of its NPA account, can at best be considered by the higher authorities of the bank keeping the public interest in view. While we direct the Registry to release a sum of Rs. 1.85 crores deposited by the petitioner in favour of the bank within one week, it would be expedient for the Administrator of the Bank or any other higher authority, which is competent to deal with the affairs of the respondent-Bank, to consider the petitioner''s request for One Time Settlement. 8. With reference to-whether the petitioner''s account can be classified as "sub-standard account" or whether there are mitigating circumstances which may warrant a lenient view to waive-off the interest fully or partially, let a decision to this effect be taken within a period of two months. 9. As far as the auction purchaser is concerned, he has deposited 10% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 23.00 lacs. Same may be returned to him alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the bid may be cancelled as the petitioner has already deposited substantial part of the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2.30 crores. The interest amount payable to the auction purchaser shall also be a part of the petitioner''sborrower''s total liability. 10. Same may be returned to him alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the bid may be cancelled as the petitioner has already deposited substantial part of the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2.30 crores. The interest amount payable to the auction purchaser shall also be a part of the petitioner''sborrower''s total liability. 10. In case the Bank decides to grant some relief to the petitioner, in that event, the amount to be waived off, may be adjusted towards the loan account of the petitioner. However, in the event of rejection of such claim, the balance amount may be informed to the petitioner without adding any interest component w.e.f. 1st November, 2018 till the Bank takes its decision. Such amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month. The petitioner will be heard in respect of additional liability fastened on it towards actual expenses incurred on the auction(s). 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.