JUDGMENT : S.MANIKUMAR, J. Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated 8.3.2021 in W.P.(C)No.6004/2021. Grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner herein is that by the impugned interim order, a learned single judge, while issuing notice on admission, in the writ petition, dismissed the stay application, for the reason that the appellant had availed a loan which is not repaid. The relief sought for is to consider Exhibit P4 application for rescheduling, pending before the respondents in connection with loan transaction on the background of physical ailment and stagnation taken place under the pandemic Covid-19 situation. According to the appellant, the learned single judge by the impugned order had given unlimited right to the respondents to take coercive action against the appellant. Hence this writ Appeal. 2. Order impugned in this writ appeal reads as under: “Heard. Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable after two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for stay of the recovery proceedings. That prayer is rejected in the wake of the fact that the petitioner had availed loan and which is not repaid by him.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the request before the learned Single Judge was for a direction to consider Exhibit P4 and till then recovery proceedings should be stayed. By issuing notice before admission and dismissing the stay sought for will practically give a right to the respondents to proceed with their coercive steps. 4. Though Mr.Biju Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions on the abovesaid grounds, we are not inclined to interfere with the same for the reason that the respondents have already initiated recovery proceedings. Perusal of the representation dated 1.3.2021, Ext.P4 shows that the appellant has availed loan for improving and developing business in the year 2007. Loan amount has to be repaid in 60 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.50,000/-per month. Due to the illness of the appellant, he was compelled to close the business. Loan repayment was defaulted and the bank had initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002. 5. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 deals with 'enforcement of security interest', which reads as under: Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 13. Loan repayment was defaulted and the bank had initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002. 5. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 deals with 'enforcement of security interest', which reads as under: Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 13. Enforcement of security interest (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882 ), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4). Provided that (i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and (ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in the same manner as provided under this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3-A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within fifteen days of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17-A. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:- (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security of the debt; (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. (5) Any payment made by any person referred to in clause (d) of subsection (4) to the secured creditor shall give such person a valid discharge as if he has made payment to the borrower. (5-A) Where the sale of an immovable property for which a reserve price has been specified, has been postponed for want of a bid of an amount not less than such reserve price, it shall be lawful for any officer of the secured creditor, if so authorised by the secured creditor in this behalf, to bid for the immovable property on behalf of the secured creditor at any subsequent sale. (5-B) Where the secured creditor, referred to in sub-section (5-A), is declared to be the purchaser of the immovable property at any subsequent sale, the amount of the purchase price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is taken by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of Section 13. (5-C) The provisions of section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, apply to the immovable property acquired by secured creditor under sub-section (5-A). (6) Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under sub-section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset. (7) Where any action has been taken against a borrower under the provisions of sub-section (4), all costs, charges and expenses which, in the opinion of the secured creditor, have been properly incurred by him or any expenses incidental thereto, shall be recoverable from the borrower and the money which is received by the secured creditor shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by him in trust, to be applied, firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and secondly, in discharge of the dues of the secured creditor and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto in accordance with his rights and interests. (8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,- (i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease, assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering of such amount under this sub section, no further step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets. (9) Subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in the case of financing of a financial asset by more than one secured creditors or joint financing of a financial asset by secured creditors, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise any or all of the rights conferred on him under or pursuant to sub-section (4)unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty percent in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date and such action shall be binding on all the secured creditors: Provided that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realised from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ): Provided further that in the case of a company being wound up on or after the commencement of this Act, the secured creditor of such company, who opts to realise his security instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ), may retain the sale proceeds of his secured assets after depositing the workmen's dues with the liquidator in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of that Act: Provided also that liquidator referred to in the second proviso shall intimate the secured creditor the workmen's dues in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ) and in case such workmen's dues cannot be ascertained, the liquidator shall intimate the estimated amount of workmen's dues under that section to the secured creditor and in such case the secured creditor may retain the sale proceeds of the secured assets after depositing the amount of such estimated dues with the liquidator: Provided also that in case the secured creditor deposits the estimated amount of workmen's dues, such creditor shall be liable to pay the balance of the workmen' s dues or entitled to receive the excess amount, if any, deposited by the secured creditor with the liquidator: Provided also that the secured creditor shall furnish an undertaking to the liquidator to pay the balance of the workmen' s dues, if any. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) "record date" means the date agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty per cent in value of the amount outstanding on such date; (b) "amount outstanding" shall include principal, interest and any other dues payable by the borrower to the secured creditor in respect of secured asset as per the books of account of the secured creditor. (10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balanc e amount from the borrower. (11) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under or by this section, secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors or sell the pledged assets without first taking any of the measures specified in clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (4) in relation to the secured assets under this Act. (12) The rights of a secured creditor under this Act may be exercised by one or more of his officers authorised in this behalf in such manner as may be prescribed. (13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor. 6. Going through the statutory provisions, prima facie, we are of the view that there is no provision in the statute or the rules framed therein to consider a petition or representation for rescheduling of the loan availed with interest, if there is any failure on the part of the debtor. 7. On the aspect of issuing any directions, for rescheduling or restructuring the loan account, this court in W.A.No.1264 of 2020 dated 28.9.2020 [Asokan Vasu v. State Bank of India] considered the correctness of the judgment of the writ court. Operative portion of the decision of the writ court therein is reproduced hereunder: “3. 7. On the aspect of issuing any directions, for rescheduling or restructuring the loan account, this court in W.A.No.1264 of 2020 dated 28.9.2020 [Asokan Vasu v. State Bank of India] considered the correctness of the judgment of the writ court. Operative portion of the decision of the writ court therein is reproduced hereunder: “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. W.A.1264/2020 3 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.” After considering various decisions, we confirmed the same as under: “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 rescheduling of the loan or for fixing instalments in connection with the loan. 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 rescheduling 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. 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. 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, Chennai1 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. 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 Singh Vs. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 8. In the light of the above decision, the view taken by the writ court that since recovery proceedings have already been initiated by the bank interim stay cannot be granted cannot be said to be erroneous. We find no illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the light of the above, writ appeal is dismissed.