JUDGMENT : Manikumar, J. Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9126 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this court, taking note of the default committed by the petitioner, including under the OTS Scheme, declined to grant the reliefs sought for, and dismissed the writ petition. Operative portion of the judgment reads thus : “3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that although the petitioner has approached the respondent bank seeking the OTS Scheme, and the said benefits were extended to the petitioner, the petitioner did not make necessary payments under the scheme within the time granted by the bank. I also note that although the bank had unilaterally extended the time for paying the balance amounts under the OTS Scheme till 30.08.2020, the petitioner did not make the entire payment stipulated as per the OTS Scheme within the said extended period. This being the case, I am of the view that this Court cannot compel the respondent bank to extend the benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioner by extending the time limit for accepting payment under the scheme. This Court would be loath to force a contract on an unwilling respondent. Accordingly, taking note of the default committed by the petitioner, including under the OTS Scheme, I am of the view that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition, therefore, fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.” 2. Facts leading to this appeal are that, appellant/petitioner, the borrower, availed a term loan of Rs. 2 Crores from the State Bank of India (SARB)-respondent, for construction of a business concern by name, “Mangalath Hotels & Resorts” at Chadayamangalam. Eighty-eight month's time has been fixed by the bank for repayment. Due to financial difficulties, he committed default. Therefore, the bank has classified the account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and provided OTS benefit to the appellant. 3. Appellant has further stated that as per the OTS scheme, an amount of Rs. 54,52,359/- has to be paid by him. Eighty-eight month's time has been fixed by the bank for repayment. Due to financial difficulties, he committed default. Therefore, the bank has classified the account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and provided OTS benefit to the appellant. 3. Appellant has further stated that as per the OTS scheme, an amount of Rs. 54,52,359/- has to be paid by him. The bank has also granted three installments for repayment of the loan amount through OTS scheme, i.e. 5% has be remitted within 30 days of the approval of the OTS, 20% of the approved OTS amount, have to be paid within 60 days, and the balance amount has to be paid within 6 months of the approval of OTS. 4. Appellant has further stated that after approval of the OTS scheme on 24.09.2019, he complied with the conditions and deposited the two installments, i.e., 5% of Rs.2,73,000/- and 10% of Rs. 10,90,090/-, within the time prescribed. According to him, as per the scheme, the balance amount of Rs. 40,89,269/- has to be paid on or before 23.03.2020. Unfortunately, when it became due, due to pandemic situations, he was unable to make the payment. 5. On 21.03.2020, the Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, issued an order closing all Bar Hotels, Beer parlours etc., in Kerala. Moreover, on 24.04.2020, the District Collector, Kollam, invoking the powers envisaged under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, issued an order for taking over the hotel of the appellant, for converting the same as isolation wards to the persons returning from abroad for quarantine facilities. The rooms were provided to persons on rental basis and the District Collector had authorized the Tahsildar and Village Officer concerned to collect rent from the persons, who occupy the hotel rooms. 6. Appellant has contended that though the District Collector had received rent amount from the persons, who had occupied the rooms in the hotel, the same has not been given to the appellant as per the agreement. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No.11527 of 2020 seeking for a direction to grant Rs.16,60,260/- to him, as room rent, without any delay. 6. Appellant has contended that though the District Collector had received rent amount from the persons, who had occupied the rooms in the hotel, the same has not been given to the appellant as per the agreement. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No.11527 of 2020 seeking for a direction to grant Rs.16,60,260/- to him, as room rent, without any delay. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure-1), with a direction to the 2nd respondent therein viz., the District Collector, Kollam, to take up the request dated 04.06.2020 (Exhibit-P3 therein) made by the petitioner/appellant herein, to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks. 7. Appellant has further stated that though Annexure-1 judgment has been produced before the District Collector, Kollam, the same has not been complied with and therefore, he filed Cont. Case (C) No.1106/2020 before this court, and the same is pending consideration. 8. Since his hotel is in the possession of the District Collector, Kollam, appellant made a request dated 16.03.2020 to the respondent bank, seeking extension of time, for repayment of the balance amount by six months. However, no decision was taken by the respondent. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No. 9126 of 2020, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – State Bank of India, to consider Exhibit-P3 request dated 16.03.2020 and grant 6 months' time to deposit the balance amount as per Exhibit-P2 notice dated 19.08.2019 issued by the Bank. 9. Before the writ court, the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (S.A.R.B), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed a counter affidavit, contending as follows: A. The petitioner was irregular in the repayment of loan. Hence, the bank has classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 29-06-2016 and initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, demand notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were issued on 03-08-2016 and 25-10-2016. B. The petitioner has voluntarily approached the bank for one time settlement, as per a scheme then existed on 31-03-2019 and the proposal given him for Rs.54,52,359/- was accepted. Thereafter, demand notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were issued on 03-08-2016 and 25-10-2016. B. The petitioner has voluntarily approached the bank for one time settlement, as per a scheme then existed on 31-03-2019 and the proposal given him for Rs.54,52,359/- was accepted. As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme, as agreed between the petitioner and the bank, 5% of the proposed OTS amount has to be paid, within 30 days of approval of the OTS, 20% of the approved OTS amount has to be paid within 60 days, and the entire balance has to be paid within 6 months of the approval of OTS. The OTS was approved on 24-09-2019 and the said fact was intimated to the petitioner directly on the said day itself. C. Respondent has further stated that the petitioner has paid Rs.2,73,000/- being 5% of the approved OTS amount on 25-09-2019, within the stipulated time. Though, the petitioner has approached the writ court, by filing W.P.(C) No.30751/2019, seeking extension of time for the 2nd payment, and that the writ court has not interfered in the matter, he had paid the 20% of the approved OTS amount of Rs.10,90,090/- within time. D. As per the OTS scheme, the entire balance amount of Rs.40,89,269/- has to be paid by the petitioner on or before 23-03-2020. However, the bank has extended the time limit for the payment till 30-06-2020 as evident from Exhibit-R(1)(a). Though, the Chief Manager of the S.A.R.B have personally intimated the petitioner about the extension of time for the payment, over mobile phone, he did not pay the amount of Rs.40,89,269/- till date, rather he has paid only an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs on 06-05-2020. Thus, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions agreed with the bank. E. Respondent has further contended that as per the Book of Acts maintained by the respondent bank, the total amount to be repaid by the petitioner, as on 22-07-2020, was Rs.1,54,86,171.64/-. It is true that he has given Exhibit-P3 representation to the bank on 16.03.2020. However, the said representation was disposed of on the same day itself by the Assistant General Manager and the order was already communicated to the petitioner by registered post on 17.03.2020, as evident from Exhibits-R(1)(b) and R(1)(c). It is true that he has given Exhibit-P3 representation to the bank on 16.03.2020. However, the said representation was disposed of on the same day itself by the Assistant General Manager and the order was already communicated to the petitioner by registered post on 17.03.2020, as evident from Exhibits-R(1)(b) and R(1)(c). F. Respondent has further contended that the agreement executed between the petitioner and the bank for OTS scheme is purely a contractual matter. The rescheduling of the terms of contract is actually a modification of the contract, which can only be done by mutual consent, by both the parties to the contract, by virtue of Section 62 of the Contract Act. This being the fact, the writ court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a direction to extend the time for the payment of installment as per the OTS scheme. On the above contentions, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with cost. 10. When the writ petition came up on admission, on 23.03.2020, writ court passed an interim order, staying the operation of Exhibit-P2 notice dated 24.09.2019 issued by the respondent, till 19.05.2020, on condition that the appellant/petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, within a period of three weeks. 11. Appellant has further stated that due to the pandemic situation, the interim order was extended time-to-time, based on the decision of a Full Bench of this court. Later, when the case came up for further hearing on 16.09.2020, the learned single Judge has passed the impugned judgment, dismissing the writ petition taking note of the default committed by the appellant in making the deposit under the OTS scheme. 12. Being aggrieved, appellant has filed the instant writ appeal contending that since his business has been closed, based on the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, he could not raise the money for repayment of the loan. His Bar hotel was taken over by the District Collector, Kollam, Chairman, of the Disaster Management Department, and provided 16 rooms on rental basis to the persons, who are advised for quarantine. Though the entire rent amount has been realised by the District Collector, the same has not been paid to him. Even though a contempt case was instituted against the District Collector, no steps have been taken by him to reimburse the rent amount to the appellant. 13. Though the entire rent amount has been realised by the District Collector, the same has not been paid to him. Even though a contempt case was instituted against the District Collector, no steps have been taken by him to reimburse the rent amount to the appellant. 13. Appellant has further contended that he had no other source of income, except the income from the hotel. Altogether a sum of Rs.54,15,610/- is due from the Department of Disaster Management. Had the amount been provided, he would have cleared off the entire balance amount due to the bank under the OTS Scheme. This aspect has not been considered by the writ court while passing the impugned judgment. 14. Appellant has further contended that he had intimated to the respondent bank about the subsequent developments, after filing the writ petition, by way of request dated 05.09.2020 (Exhibit-P4), for extension of time, to repay the balance amount. However, the writ court has failed to take note of the said fact and did not enquire about the stand of the respondent bank as regards the said request, which according to him, would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Appellant has further contended that without functioning the business concern, he is not able to raise the money for repayment of loan amount to the bank. He had deposited two installments, based on the OTS scheme, within time. So, it is evident that he is not a chronic defaulter and, therefore, cannot be presumed that he has wilfully delayed the payment of the balance amount. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. Notice dated 19.08.2019 (Exhibit-P1), issued by the respondent to the appellant is extracted hereunder : “To Asokan Vasu AGM/TVM/SARB/SLA/115G 2019- Prop. M/S.Mangalath Hotels & resorts Chadayamangalam 19/08/2019 Kottarakkara Pin-691534. Dear Sir, Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs & AUCAs (SBI OTS 2019) A/c No.67205246774 Branch SARB Thiruvananthapuram State Bank of India has come out with a scheme for One Time Settlement (OTS) of non-performing assets 2019. M/S.Mangalath Hotels & resorts Chadayamangalam 19/08/2019 Kottarakkara Pin-691534. Dear Sir, Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs & AUCAs (SBI OTS 2019) A/c No.67205246774 Branch SARB Thiruvananthapuram State Bank of India has come out with a scheme for One Time Settlement (OTS) of non-performing assets 2019. In this connection, we would like to advise you that your dues to the Bank are eligible for settlement under the SBI OTS 2019 on the following terms and conditions: (i) Book outstanding (excluding notional interest from the date of NPA) as on 31.03.2019: Rs.7215449/- (ii) OTS Amount: Rs.5452359/- (iii) After the sanction of the OTS, 5%/15% (for willful defaulters) of the OTS amount will have to be deposited by you as initial money within thirty days from the date of sanction of OTS as 1st installment failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous and OTS treated as failed. (iv) You have to deposit 20%/25% (in case of willful defaulters) of the OTS Amount (As per the settlement formula) as upfront money within sixty days from the date of sanction of OTS failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous (inclusive of money deposited along with the application) and OTS treated as failed. (v) The balance amount can be paid within 6 months from the date of sanction of OTS (the validity period) together with interest @ One Year MCLR on reducing balance basis effective from the date of sanction of the OTS, failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous and treated as failed. (vi) However, no interest will be charged, if the entire OTS amount is paid within 4 months from the date of sanction. (vii) You will be eligible for an additional incentive on the OTS amount, on making payment of the entire amount as given below. A. Full Payment of OTS amount within Incentive on full payment of OTS Amount One month from the date of sanction 20% Two months from the date of sanction 15% B. Incentive on 50% payment of OTS Amount: 50% payment of OTS amount within Incentive on full payment of OTS Amount One month from the date of sanction 10% 2. (Where applicable) Since your case is pending before Court/Lok Adalat/DRT any settlement will be subject to consent decree from the respective court. (Where applicable) Since your case is pending before Court/Lok Adalat/DRT any settlement will be subject to consent decree from the respective court. Since you have been issued notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, this notice is without any prejudice to our rights to take/continue actions under the Act unless a compromise is settled under the present SBI OTS 2019 Scheme as stated above. 3. Please advise your willingness to settle the dues latest by 23.09.2019. Your request for settlement will be processed for acceptance or otherwise on receipt of your communication. Yours faithfully, Branch Manager/Chief Manger/Asstt. General Manager/Deputy General Manager.” 18. Notice dated 24.09.2019 (Exhibit-P2), issued by the respondent to the appellant is extracted hereunder: “Without Prejudice To Ref No. SARB/TVM/SLA//2019-2020 Sri. Asokan Vasu, Date: 24/09/2019 Prop. M/s.Mangalath Hotels & Resorts Chadayamangalam, Kottarakkara Kollam- Pin-691534 Dear Sir, Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs & AUCAs (SBI OTS 2019) RA/TL 67205246774 We refer to your letter no nil. dated 19/08/2019 for settlement of your dues to the Bank under the captioned scheme. We are pleased to advise that your application under the captioned scheme has been accepted by the appropriate authority. I. OTS amount payable under the OTS Scheme will be Rs. 5452359/- (Rupees Fifty four lacs fifty two thousand three hundred and fifty nine Only) II. 5%/15% (in case of willful defaulters) of the OTS amount will have to be deposited by you as initial money within thirty days from the date of sanction of OTS, failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous. III. 20%/25% (in case of willful defaulters) of the OTS Amount will have to be deposited (As per the settlement formula) as upfront money within sixty days from the date of sanction of OTS failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous (inclusive of money deposited along with the application) and OTS treated as failed. IV. The balance amount can be paid within 6 months from the date of this letter, i.e. 23/03/2020 together with interest @ One year MCLR on reducing balance basis effective from the date of this letter, i.e. within 23/03/2020, failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous. V. However, no interest will be charged if the entire OTS amount is paid within 4 months from the date of this letter, i.e. 23/01/2020. VI. V. However, no interest will be charged if the entire OTS amount is paid within 4 months from the date of this letter, i.e. 23/01/2020. VI. You will be eligible for an additional incentive on the OTS amount, on making payment of the entire OTS amount as given below. Full Payment of OTS amount within Incentive on full payment of OTS Amount One month from the date of sanction 20% Two months from the date of sanction 15% # Incentive will be available at the time of making the payment of last installment of OTS amount within the stipulated time. VII. Consent terms with default clause will be filed before Presiding Officer of DRT/Court for obtaining Consent Decree. We, therefore, advise you to accept the terms and conditions of the above sanction and arrange for payment of OTS amount as per terms mentioned above. A resolution of the Company for acceptance of the OTS terms and authorizing a Director to execute/sign necessary documents may also be submitted. The duplicate of this letter duly signed be sent to us indicating your acceptance of above mentioned terms and conditions of OTS. Yours faithfully, Asst. General Manager(SARB) We accept above mentioned terms and conditions of OTS: For MANGALATH HOTEL & RESORTS Proprietor (Borrower - M/s -Mangalath Hotels &Resorts) 19. Request dated 16.03.2020 (Exhibit-P3), made by the appellant before the respondent is extracted hereunder: “Date: 16.03.2020 From Sri. Asokan Vasu, Prop. M/s. Mangalath Hotels & Resorts Chadayamangalam, Kottarakkara Kollam- Pin-691534 To The Assistant general Manager, (SARB) LMS Compound, Opp. Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram — 695 033. Dear Sir, Ref: Payment of Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs (SBI OTS 2019) RA/TL-67205246774 As per the above reference, the OTS benefits has been granted by the bank and based on the scheme, I have been remitted two installments ie., 5%, 20% respectively. As per the scheme the remaining amount should be remitted on or before 31.03.2020. It is respectfully submitted that now due to the threat of Corona Virus (COVID 19), my business concern have been closed for a period of one month. Hence it is caused acute financial difficulties. Therefore it is highly required 6 months'' more time for the repayment of balance amount. Unless a breathing time should be provided, it will cause a great prejudice and irrecoverable loss to me. Hence it is caused acute financial difficulties. Therefore it is highly required 6 months'' more time for the repayment of balance amount. Unless a breathing time should be provided, it will cause a great prejudice and irrecoverable loss to me. Therefore, it is most humbly requested to you that yourself may be pleased to take immediate steps to grant 6 months' time for the repayment of last installments as per the above reference OTS Scheme. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Asokan Vasu” 20. The documents produced along with the counter affidavit by the respondent bank are extracted hereunder. 21. Exhibit-R(1)(a) order dated 01.04.2020 of the State Bank of India, whereby the OTS Scheme is extended reads thus: “The. Chief General Manager State Bank of India All LHOs/CAG/CCG/SARG/SME/l&MA SARG/OTS/01/2020-21 Date: 01.04.2020 Madam/Dear Sir, Circular: EXTENSION IN TIMELINE TILL 30TH JUNE 2020, FOR: (1) PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER SBI OTS 2019/RINN SAMADHAN/GENERAL COMPROMISE, (2) FOR RECEIPT OF ACCEPTANCE OF OTS PROPOSAL UNDER RINN-SAMADHAN 19-20 Please refer to e-Circular No. CCO/CPPD-ADV/74/2019-20 dated 07.08.2019, CCO/CPPD-ADV/157/2019-20 dated 06.01.2020 and CCO/CPPD-SAM/76/2019 — 20 dated 14.08.2019. The spread of Covid-19 pandemic in India/other countries and measures taken by the Government of India to combat its spread, have led to disruption in economic activities. The Central Government has announced a complete lockdown for 21 days, across the country, starting from 24.03.2020. Much of the activities have come to a grinding halt, except essential services. As a result, the borrowers are not able to honour the payment obligations under our various compromise schemes, for most of which the last date for repayment had been fixed as 31st March 2020. Consequent upon review of the above situation and recommendations of the branches for extending the timeline for repayment of agreed OTS amounts, under SBI OTS 2019/Rinn- Samadhan 19-20/General Compromise. Accordingly, the competent authority has accorded approval for extension in timeline upto 30th June 2020, for payment obligations, i.e., instalments, as well as final repayment, under SBI OTS 2019 Scheme, Rinn-Samadhan 19-20 Scheme and General compromise. However, this extension in timeline will be applicable to sanctioned cases, which have not lapsed/failed, as on 1st March 2020, under these schemes. Accordingly, the competent authority has accorded approval for extension in timeline upto 30th June 2020, for payment obligations, i.e., instalments, as well as final repayment, under SBI OTS 2019 Scheme, Rinn-Samadhan 19-20 Scheme and General compromise. However, this extension in timeline will be applicable to sanctioned cases, which have not lapsed/failed, as on 1st March 2020, under these schemes. It is also approved to extend the timeline upto 30.06.2020, for receipt of acceptance of OTS proposal, along with upfront payment from borrowers, under Rinn-Samadhan 19-20 (last date, at present, being 31.03.2020), so as to provide an extended opportunity to borrowers, who have not been able to approach branches, owing to the lockdown. Details of the existing and proposed guidelines under various schemes will be as under : Name of the scheme Earlier instructions Revised Instructions Remarks SBI OTS 2019 Scheme {Para 4(iv)} After initial payment of 5%/15% of OTS amount within 30 days of sanction and 20%/25% of the amount within 60 days from sanction, the balance OTS amount is to be paid, without interest, within four months from the date of sanction of OTS OR within 6 months from the date of sanction of OTS, i.e. 31.03.2020 (the validity period) together with interest @ One year MCLR. {Para 4(iv)} After initial payment of 5%/15% of OTS amount within 30 days of sanction and 20%/25% of the amount within 60 days of sanction, the balance OTS amount is paid, without interest, latest by 30.06.2020. (No interest will be charged on the amount to be paid after four months from the date of sanction. The extension of repayment period upto 30.06.2020 will be available only to those cases, where the first two instalments i.e. 5%/15% and 20%/25% have been received within the stipulated timelines of 30 and 60 days respectively. Rin Samadhan 19-20 Scheme period Last date for receipt of acceptance along with upfront payment from borrowers on or before 31.03.2020 and upto 30.06.2020 for recovery of entire OTS amount. Scheme period Last date for receipt of acceptance along with upfront payment from borrowers on or before 30.06.2020 and up to 30.09.2020 for recovery of entire amount. The arrangement will be reviewed again in June 2020. Acceptance of delayed payment of monthly installment with @9% interest p.a. for delayed payment on unpaid amount. Scheme period Last date for receipt of acceptance along with upfront payment from borrowers on or before 30.06.2020 and up to 30.09.2020 for recovery of entire amount. The arrangement will be reviewed again in June 2020. Acceptance of delayed payment of monthly installment with @9% interest p.a. for delayed payment on unpaid amount. However, the last date for payment of such delayed installment shall not be later than 30.09.2020 Acceptance of delayed payment of monthly installment with @9% interest p.a. for delayed payment on unpaid amount. However, the Last date for payment of such delayed installment shall not be later than 31.12.2020 General Compromise Payments obligations outstanding as on 01.03.2020, to be extended by 3 months from the respective dates, without charging any interest for these additional 3 months The arrangement will be reviewed again in June 2020 All other terms & conditions of the scheme will be applicable as per above referred circulars. Please bring the contents of the Circular to the notice of the Operating Units under your control for meticulous compliance. For any further clarifications in this regard, please refer to SARG CMD, NBG at Corporate Centre, Mumbai. Rationale: To provide an extended opportunity to borrowers, who have not been able to approach branches, owing to the lockdown. Yours faithfully, For Deputy Managing Director & Chief Credit Officer 22. Exhibit-R(1)(b) communication dated 16.03.2020 sent by the bank to the appellant reads thus: “AGM/TVM/SARB/RBJ/3559/2019-20 16/03/2020 Sri. Asokan vasu Prop. M/s Mangalath Hotels & Resorts Chadayamangalam, Kottarakkara, Kollam-691534 Dear sir, Extension of time under SBI 0TS2019 TERM LOAN A/C 67205246774 M/S MANGALATH HOTEL & RESORT We refer to your letter dated 16/03/2020 seeking extension of time to remit the dues in the account No.67205246774 which is eligible under SBI OTS SCHEME 2019. In this connection we have to inform you that Bank has given time upto 23/03/2020 to settle the entire dues in the above account as a part of the SBI OTS SCHEME. No further extension of time is permitted under the scheme at present. Therefore we are unable to accede to your request. You are requested to remit the balance amount due in the account with interest on or before 23/03/2020 failing which you will lose the entire benefits/concessions under the scheme and the partial. amount already remitted as per the scheme will be treated as normal repayment. Yours faithfully Sd/- Asstt. General Manager (SARB) 23. You are requested to remit the balance amount due in the account with interest on or before 23/03/2020 failing which you will lose the entire benefits/concessions under the scheme and the partial. amount already remitted as per the scheme will be treated as normal repayment. Yours faithfully Sd/- Asstt. General Manager (SARB) 23. Request dated 05.09.2020 (Exhibit-P4) submitted by the appellant before the respondent reads thus: “From, Asokan Vasu, aged 50 years, S/o Vasu, Prathibhas, Proprietor, Mangalath Hotels & Resorts, Chadayamangalam P.O., Chadayamangalam, Kollam District. To, The Asstt. General Manager, (SARB), LMS Compound, Opp. Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 033. Sub.- Request for extension of time for the repayment regarding OTS Scheme due to the pandemic situation. Ref:- Payment of Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs (SBI OTS 2019) RA/TL-67205246774. Sir With respect, As per the above reference, the OTS benefits has been granted by the bank and based on the scheme, I have been remitted two installments within time. As per the scheme, the remaining amount should be remitted on or before 31.03.2020. It respectfully submitted that now due to the pandemic situation, my business concern have been closed from the month of March 2020 as per the order of the Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Moreover, my Hotel has been already taken by the District Collector for arranging rooms for the gulf return persons as quarantine. Though the rooms are provided for rent, the same has not been given to me by the Disaster Management Department and hence, I filed writ petition and the Hon'ble High Court allowed the case. Now Contempt Case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore one more month may be granted for the repayment of balance amount as per the OTS benefits. Otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and hardships. Therefore, it is humbly requested to you that yourself may kindly consider my application and granted one month time for the repayment of balance amount as per OTS Scheme. Kollam 05.09.2020 Asokan Vasu” 24. Request dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure-II) submitted by the appellant before the District Collector, Kollam, reads thus : FROM ASOKAN VASU PROPRIETOR MANGALATH HOTEL AND RESORTS, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, MOB : 9447092183 TO THE HON: DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD KOLLAM. Kollam 05.09.2020 Asokan Vasu” 24. Request dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure-II) submitted by the appellant before the District Collector, Kollam, reads thus : FROM ASOKAN VASU PROPRIETOR MANGALATH HOTEL AND RESORTS, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, MOB : 9447092183 TO THE HON: DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD KOLLAM. SUB : REGARDING THE UNDERTAKING OF MY HOTEL AND DUE PAYMENT OF THE ROOM RENT MY HOTEL IS A 3 STAR HOTEL WHICH IS CLASSIFIED UNDER INDIA TOURISM, NEW DELHI AS PER THE CLASSIFICATION MY HOTEL ROOM TARIFF IS,- DOUBLE BED ROOM 2000 +18% GST PER DAY 3 BED ROOM 2500 +18% GST PER DAY Due To The Covid -19 Situations The Concerned Authority Undertake My Hotel Rooms As Per The District Collector Order For The Paid Quarantine Facility From The Date 24-04-2020,They Have Taken Control Of My Hotel. There Are No Quarantines Currently Staying In My Hotel. But I Haven't Got My Hotel Back To My control By The Authorities And They Are Not Handing over My Hotel Keys Yet. They Have Not Released My Hotel To Me Till The Time. There Is A Lot Of Damages Occurred To The Hotel Building As A Result Of The Undertaking Of The Hotel. It Is Also Not Possible For me To Access The Building As The Keys Are Not Given. 1 Have Already Submitted The First 42 Days Invoice On 04-06-2020.The Bill Has Approved By The Authority But The Payment Is Not Given Till The Time, It Is Now Under The Hon: High Court Of Kerala As Contempt Of Court Cases (WP(C)NO 11527 Dated 29-06-2020) and Is Pending Now. In This Scenario, I Am Submitting The Room Rent Invoice For The Period Of 05-06-2020 To 07-09-2020 For Your Kind Consideration. I Wish To Bring To Your Mind Attention To This Situation And Kindly Requesting To Take Appropriate Actions That Is Necessary For The Sanction Of The Rental Charges Of The Hotel Rooms. I Am Expecting A Positive Response From You. 08-09-2020 CHADAYAMANGALAM Yours Faithfully ASOKAN VASU” 25. Material on record discloses that the appellant has availed the loan, defaulted and the account has been classified as NPA on 29.06.2016. Demand notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have been issued way back in 2016 i.e., on 3.8.2016 and 25.10.2016 respectively. 08-09-2020 CHADAYAMANGALAM Yours Faithfully ASOKAN VASU” 25. Material on record discloses that the appellant has availed the loan, defaulted and the account has been classified as NPA on 29.06.2016. Demand notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have been issued way back in 2016 i.e., on 3.8.2016 and 25.10.2016 respectively. The appellant has approached the bank for one time settlement as per the Scheme, which existed on 31.03.2019, and the one time proposal was approved on 24.09.2019. Thereafter, the same was informed to the appellant. 26. Though W.P.(C) No.30751 of 2019 was filed for extension of time, for paying the second installment, writ court did not interfere. But, the appellant has paid the second installment, within time. As per the One Time Settlement Scheme, the entire balance amount of Rs.40,89,269/- has to be paid by the appellant on or before 23.03.2020. 27. Material on record further discloses that the request dated 16.03.2020 for further extension of time, has been rejected and that the same has been communicated to the appellant through a registered post dated 17.03.2020, by the respondent bank. Considering the request of the appellant, as per the then existing scheme, in the year 2019, OTS has been approved and the last date of payment of the entire amount was on 23.03.2020. However, the appellant has defaulted. But, the bank on its own, has extended the time for payment, till 30.06.2020. Though the extension of time was informed to the appellant, he has paid Rs.2 lakhs only on 6.5.2020 and thereafter, he has not made any payment. 28. Though the appellant has cited COVID-19 pandemic, as one of the reasons for not making the payment of the balance amount, besides, taking over the hotel by the Government, the fact remains that from 2016, when the account was declared as NPA, followed by the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, he has not made any payment till 2020. 29. Issue as to whether, Government have not paid the amount, is subject matter of a writ petition. Even taking it for granted that there is money due from the Government, that cannot be a ground for not fulfilling the obligations under a contract, viz., OTS Scheme. As stated above, the bank on its own has extended the time upto 30.06.2020. Even then, the appellant has not remitted the balance amount. 30. Even taking it for granted that there is money due from the Government, that cannot be a ground for not fulfilling the obligations under a contract, viz., OTS Scheme. As stated above, the bank on its own has extended the time upto 30.06.2020. Even then, the appellant has not remitted the balance amount. 30. In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation v. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, [ 2004 (5) CTC 689 ], the Hon'ble Madras High Court, at paragraph Nos.7, 8, 16 and 18, held as under : "7. In our considered opinion it is not proper for the Court to interfere in such matters relating to recovery of loans. Such matters are contractual in nature and writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy for this. A writ lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or there is violation of law. No writ lies merely for directing one time settlement or for directing re- scheduling of the loan or for fixing instalments in connection with the loan. It is only the bank or the financial institution which granted the loan which can re-schedule it or fix one time settlement or grant instalments. The Court has no right under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct grant of one time settlement or for re-scheduling of the loan, or to fix instalments. 8. No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judicial interpretation the words 'any other purpose' have been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any legal right or performance of any legal duty, vide Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044 . In the present case, the writ petitioner has really prayed for a Mandamus to the Corporation to grant it a one time settlement, but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought. 16. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought. 16. A loan is granted in terms of the contract, and grant of one time settlement or re-scheduling of the loan amount is really a modification of the contract, which can only be done by mutual consent of the parties, vide Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract. 18. Before parting with the case we would like to mention that recovery of tens of thousands of crore rupees of loans of banks and financial institutions has been held up by Court orders under Article 226 proceedings which were really unwarranted. However, much sympathy a Court may have for a party, a writ Court must exercise its jurisdiction on well settled principles, and not a mere sympathy or compassion. No doubt, there be hardship to a party, but unless violation of law is shown the Court cannot interfere. Holding up recoveries of loans by unwarranted Court orders is causing incalculable harm to our economy, since unless the loan is recovered a fresh loan cannot be granted to needy persons. The Courts must keep these considerations in mind." 31. In M/s. Digivision Electronics Ltd., Registered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32 v. Indian Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, [ 2005 (3) LW 269 ], a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras Court, at paragraph No.42, held as follows: "42. Some of the learned counsel submitted that the Court should direct one time settlement or fixing of installment or rescheduling the loan. In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689 , it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction, since directing one time settlement or granting installments is really re-scheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles". At paragraph No.46, in M/s. Digivision Electronics Ltd., (cited supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench further held as follows: "46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 WLR 47, Chandra SinghVs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul Vs. P.Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639 , Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134 , etc." 32. In Vipin Kumar Gupta v. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Gyanpur and Others [ AIR 2004 ALL. 319 ], the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: “6. The correct interpretation of Art. 226 is that a writ can be issued to the persons to whom and, for the purpose for which, writs were traditionally issued by the British Court on well established principles, vide Election Commissioner v. Saka Venkat (1953) SCR 1144 : ( AIR 1953 SC 210 ), Basappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 , etc. One of the well established principles, on which the British Court issued writs was that a writ of certiorari will issue only when there is error of law apparent on the face of the record and a mandamus will issue for enforcement of a legal right or performance of legal duty, vide Fertilzer Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 (para 10), State of Orissa v. Madangopal Rungta (1952) SCR 28 (33) : ( AIR 1952 SC 12 ), Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1047-8). 7. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1047-8). 7. Similarly, although Art.226 on the face of it says that a writ can be issued to any person, by judicial interpretation the Courts have placed a restricted interpretation to the language of Art.226, and it has been held that writs except (a writ of habeas corpus) can only be issued to the State or an instrumentality of the State, and not to private persons vide Dr. Anand Kumar Gupta v. Rajghat Education Centre, 2003 All LJ 587, General Manager, Modipan Fibre Co. v. Narendra Pal Gahlot, 2003 All LJ 980, G. Basi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, 2003 (2) All WC 1199 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1764 , Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2728 : AIR 2003 SC 4325 , Anil Kumar Agarwal v. U. P. Stock Exchange, 2004 (1) AWC 280 : (2004 All LJ 365) etc. 8. We have elaborated on this because a large number of petitions are being filed in this Court in which the only prayer is that the High Court should fix instalments of the loan taken by the petitioner or to grant one time settlement. In our opinion the High Court has no power to do this. It should exercise judicial restraint and observe the well settled principles on which writs are issued.” 33. The decisions, extracted above, can be made applicable to the case on hand. 34. From the above, it could be deduced that sufficient indulgence has been granted by the respondent bank, rescheduling the payment. As rightly held by the writ court, directions cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the bank for restructuring the payment. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, reliefs sought for by the appellant in the writ petition cannot be granted. There is no error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference in appeal. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.