JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. 2. Supplementary-affidavit pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2018 is being filed today wherein it has been mentioned that respondents have accepted the notice. Thus, service of notice is complete. The supplementary affidavit is kept on record. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of direction upon the respondent to refund of the admitted auction amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- to the petitioner when as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines, one time settlement made on Rs. 16,00,000/- of Non-performing assets (NPAs) and entire settlement amount was deposited by 30.07.2004 without adjusting the auction proceed amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- as auctioned on 02.05.2000 and 31.05.2000 respectively. (b) The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent to pay the admitted auction amount with 12%per annum interest from July 2001 till realization and further declare that the Bank has no jurisdiction to make credit of auction amount on different dates in NPAs account in between 25.04.2001 to 15.06.2001. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan of around 50 lacs from the respondent bank was taken by the petitioner as back as in the year 1992 and the account became N. P. A. (non performing assets) in the year 1994. A recovery suit was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna being O.A case no 82 of 1998 for realisation of dues of Rs. 31,35,137/- and the bank had prayed for cost and interest also. The said O.A was decreed in favour of the bank for an amount of Rs. 38,40,142/-. Thereafter recovery proceedings being R. P. Case No. 76/99 was initiated. In the recovery proceedings the properties of the certificate debtor was sold on 02.05.2000 and 31.05.2000 and a total amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- was recovered and the recovery proceedings continued. However, during the pendency of the recovery proceeding, the petitioner had filed proposal for one time settlement said to be under Reserve Bank of India guidelines vide letter no. 13.12.2000 and also by subsequent letter dated 23.03.2001 as contained in Annexure 1 and 1/1 to the writ petition. 5,20,000/- was recovered and the recovery proceedings continued. However, during the pendency of the recovery proceeding, the petitioner had filed proposal for one time settlement said to be under Reserve Bank of India guidelines vide letter no. 13.12.2000 and also by subsequent letter dated 23.03.2001 as contained in Annexure 1 and 1/1 to the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the letters for one time settlement issued by the petitioner, the respondent bank issued letter dated 24.12.2001, whereby the proposal of the petitioner was rejected as not viable on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit 25% amount and had adjusted Rs. 5.20 lacs against down payment of 25% which was realized by way of auction of the property of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed letter dated 25.03.2004 and made an offer of Rs. 16,00,000/- which was accepted by the bank vide letter dated 01.06.2004 and this amount was thereafter paid which according to the petitioner was based on R. B. I. guidelines and thereafter vide letter dated 13.08.2004 the petitioner was informed that the entire amount of compromise of Rs. Sixteen Lacs as proposed by the petitioner has already been paid. The grievance of the petitioner is that the offer amount of Rs. 16 lacs which was paid by the petitioner should have include the amount of Rs. 5.20 lacs which was realized by the bank by auction of the property. The petitioner submits that since the amount of Rs. 16 lacs was paid, auction amount of Rs. 5.20 lacs should be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that this is the scheme of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines which he has filed today by way of supplementary affidavit as contained in Annexure-13. He refers to the page 11 of the supplementary affidavit to show that the minimum amount that should be recovered under the revised guidelines in respect of compromise settlement of non-performing assets as classified as doubtful or loss as on 31st March 2000 would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date of transfer to the protested bills account or the amount outstanding as on the date on which the account was categorised as doubtful NPAs, whichever happened earlier, as the case may be. 6. 6. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner this court finds no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner on account of the following facts and reasons:- (a). From perusal of the writ petition, particularly Annexure-5, this court finds that vide letter dated 24.12.2001 issued by the respondent bank, earlier offer of the petitioner was rejected as not viable. (b). Subsequently the petitioner filed fresh application dated 25. 03. 2004 and 26. 05. 2004 for one time settlement specifically mentioning offer of Rs. 16 lacs as full and final settlement of dues as per the guidelines of R.B.I. i.e. first 25% to be paid and balance 75% in equal instalments within one year. This offer letter of one time settlement for an amount of Rs. 16 lacs does not put a condition by the petitioner that the amount realized through the auction will be adjusted against that amount of Rs. 16 lacs. (c). This offer of the petitioner was accepted by the Bank vide letter dated 01.06.2004 and the petitioner has paid all the dues as per the accepted offer of one time settlement. (d). Accordingly, the respondent issued letter dated 13.08.2004 certifying that the entire compromise amount has already been received by the bank. (e). From perusal of the case record this court finds that there was clear offer of payment of Rs. 16 lacs by way of one time settlement vide letters dated 25.03.2004 and 26.05.2004 and in that offer there was no condition for adjustment of the amount realised by auction of the properties and accordingly there is no question of refund of the amount which has been realised as back as in the year 2000 by way of auction of the properties in the recovery proceedings as claimed by the petitioner. (f). So far as Reserve Bank of India guidelines are concerned, it does not help the petitioner in any manner as the recovery made by the bank is not contrary to the said guidelines. The said guidelines only prescribes the minimum amount which has to be recovered and does not put a bar upon the bank from realisation of the entire dues or any amount more than the minimum amount as mentioned in the guidelines. Accordingly the contention of the petitioner that the amount has been recovered by the bank contrary to the R.B.I. Guidelines is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly the contention of the petitioner that the amount has been recovered by the bank contrary to the R.B.I. Guidelines is hereby rejected. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that by way of compromise upon due offer and acceptance, the matter has been settled between the parties, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned action of the respondent bank. Accordingly the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the amount of Rs. 5.20 lacs which has been recovered by auction of the properties in the said recovery proceeding is hereby rejected. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.