JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner, who is running a proprietary business in construction, hardware and paint materials, has filed this writ petition seeking to command respondents 1 to 3 to immediately release loan papers, security title deeds and other documents obtained towards the loan covered by Ext.P3 settlement. Incidental reliefs are also sought for. 2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent-Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sasthamangalam Branch provided a term loan facility of Rs. 90 lakhs to the petitioner on 30.10.2006. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the Bank against the petitioner. The petitioner filed WP (C) No. 28398/2011 when Section 14 was invoked. This Court granted 10 EMIs to discharge the liability of about Rs. 100 lakhs. Though the petitioner made substantial remittances, on making a default, the Bank recalled the One Time Settlement facility on 18.03.2017. 3. The Bank then filed O.A. No. 440/2017 in the DRT, Ernakulam for realisation of dues. The petitioner would submit that during the interregnum, he had brought down the outstanding to Rs. 25 lakhs even as per the bank statement. But, the Bank brought up the amount to Rs. 55 lakhs soon. By 18.03.2017, when OTS offer was withdrawn by the Bank, the petitioner had remitted more than Rs. 100 lakhs. 4. The Bank again permitted the petitioner to settle the liability for a total amount of Rs. 35,50,000/- as per Ext.P3 dated 15.01.2020. Towards this settlement, the petitioner paid Rs. 5,50,000/- on 15.01.2020 itself as is evident from Ext.P4. Thereafter, Rs. 18 lakhs was paid on 11.03.2020 and Rs. 7.5 lakhs on 20.03.2020. Another Rs. 4,50,000/- was transferred to the Bank on 20.03.2020. 5. Thus, the entire OTS amount of Rs. 35,50,000/- was paid. Now, the Bank is not returning to the petitioner the title documents in respect of the property offered by the petitioner on a specious plea that in view of RBI directions, the Bank cannot accept the OTS agreed upon. The respondents are therefore compellable by appropriate orders of this Court to return the title documents to the petitioner. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 stated that the account of the petitioner became NPA on 31.12.2008. In WP (C) No. 30040/2009, this Court permitted the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount in five equal monthly instalments. The petitioner failed to pay. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 stated that the account of the petitioner became NPA on 31.12.2008. In WP (C) No. 30040/2009, this Court permitted the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount in five equal monthly instalments. The petitioner failed to pay. The petitioner then filed WP (C) No. 28398/2011. This Court granted time to the petitioner to pay the balance amounts due, in 10 equal monthly instalments. The petitioner still failed to clear the loan. 7. Respondents 1 to 3 denied the statement of the petitioner that Rs. 28,86,562/- was paid on 30.03.2015. According to the respondents, the entry shown in their statement of accounts is a mistake. The petitioner paid only Rs. 65,00,000/- by 27.12.2014. Thus, as against Rs. 100 lakhs, the petitioner paid only Rs. 65 lakhs within the time limit prescribed for OTS. The OTS therefore stood terminated. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(d) offer dated 14.01.2020 to settle the account for Rs. 35,50,000/-. The offer was addressed to the Regional Manager. At that time, the loan outstanding was Rs. 1,06,22,805.19. Market value of the secured property would come to Rs. 2,19,84,000/-. Therefore, the Regional Manager could not have settled the account of the petitioner under OTS for Rs. 35,50,000/-. It could have been settled only by the next higher authority, as per RBI stipulations. Ext.P3 settlement is without any authority, contended respondents 1 to 3. 9. The counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent, who is the mother of the petitioner, argued that the Bank being ‘State’ cannot take a defence that the One Time Settlement as per Ext.P3 is a mistake. The principles of promissory estoppel would come into play, against the Bank. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the additional 4th respondent. 11. The pleadings would disclose that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 90 lakhs on 05.12.2006. When SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, the petitioner approached this Court and in WP (C) No. 28398/2011, this Court permitted the petitioner to pay back Rs. 100 lakhs in ten equal monthly instalments. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the judgment, he remitted a substantial amount. The Bank would admit that the petitioner paid Rs. 25 lakhs on 30.06.2014 and Rs. When SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, the petitioner approached this Court and in WP (C) No. 28398/2011, this Court permitted the petitioner to pay back Rs. 100 lakhs in ten equal monthly instalments. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the judgment, he remitted a substantial amount. The Bank would admit that the petitioner paid Rs. 25 lakhs on 30.06.2014 and Rs. 40 lakhs on 27.12.2014. As the entire amount was not cleared, the Bank recalled the settlement and filed O.A. No. 440/2017 in the DRT, Ernakulam, for recovering Rs. 90 lakhs. 12. The petitioner thereafter made a fresh offer for One Time Settlement to the Regional Manager of the Bank agreeing to settle the loan for Rs. 35,50,000/-. The offer was accepted by the Bank on 15.01.2020 as per Ext.P3 communication, which reads as follows: “In continuation of our e-mail dated 14.01.2020, we would like to inform you that the competent authority has accepted your OTS proposal for Rs. 35,50,000/- for your account M/s. Guruji Enterprises with the following conditions: 1. Initial OTS payment for Rs. 5,50,000/- is to be paid tomorrow 15.01.2020 without fail. 2. Remaining Amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- is to be paid before 20.03.2020. 3. DRT cases will be withdrawn and title deeds will be returned only after closure of the loan account through OTS on receipt of full payment. 4. If the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- is not paid before 20.03.2020 this offer letter will stand cancelled and you shall be liable to pay the full amount of Rs. 10,32,57,000/- plus interest in addition to the above conditions mentioned in our earlier mail dated 14.01.2020.” 13. The petitioner paid Rs. 5,50,000/- on 15.01.2020, Rs. 18,00,000/- on 11.03.2020 and Rs. 7,50,000/- on 20.03.2020. Another amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was transferred to the Bank through RTGS on 20.03.2020. Thus, the petitioner remitted the entire OTS amount within the time stipulated in Ext.P3. Still, respondents 1 to 3 are refusing to admit the settlement and return to the petitioner the title documents deposited by him by way of security. 14. The contention of the Bank is that since the secured property would fetch more than Rs. 2 Crores, as per Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) guidelines, the account could not have been settled by the Bank for Rs. 35,50,000/-. 14. The contention of the Bank is that since the secured property would fetch more than Rs. 2 Crores, as per Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) guidelines, the account could not have been settled by the Bank for Rs. 35,50,000/-. The further argument is that the settlement on terms mentioned in Ext.P3 could have been made by the Bank only at the Corporate Office level. In this case, the OTS was addressed to the Regional Manager and Ext.P3 was issued by the Branch Manager. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank relied on the judgment of this Court in Prasad and Another vs. Grave Chekkakkari Nadankari Padasekhara Committee and Others, 2018 (4) KLJ 673 to contend that since Ext.P3 agreement is by a mistake, as the parties were under a mutual mistake with respect to their respective rights, the agreement is liable to be set aside as having been proceeded upon a common mistake. 16. The learned Standing Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Rathnam M. and Others vs. Susheelamma, AIR 2009 Kar. 79 , argued that when both parties proceeded with the transaction under a mistake as to fact that one of them had the authority to enter into an agreement, the mistake of fact is mutual and by virtue of Section 20 of the Contract Act, 1872, the agreement is void and unenforceable in law. 17. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sheeba Engineering Industries vs. State Bank of India, (2009) 3 CTC 362 to urge that an OTS signed in ignorance of a material fact is liable to be withdrawn. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Badrilal vs. Municipal Corporation of Indore, AIR 1973 SC 508 , to urge the point. 18. In the petitioner's case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had made an offer of one-time settlement for Rs. 35.5 lakhs. The offer was addressed to the Regional Manager of the Bank. The acceptance of the offer was communicated to the petitioner by the Branch Manager. The petitioner acted upon Ext.P3 and paid the amount due under Ext.P3 within the stipulated time. The Bank relied on Ext.R1(g) to contend that the Branch Manager or Regional Manager was not competent to enter into Ext.P3 settlement. Ext.R1(g) Circular provides for policy guidelines. The acceptance of the offer was communicated to the petitioner by the Branch Manager. The petitioner acted upon Ext.P3 and paid the amount due under Ext.P3 within the stipulated time. The Bank relied on Ext.R1(g) to contend that the Branch Manager or Regional Manager was not competent to enter into Ext.P3 settlement. Ext.R1(g) Circular provides for policy guidelines. The title to Ext.R1(g) itself states that it is a settlement/compromise policy. Ext.R1(g) Circular requires the respondent-Bank to transact their business in a particular manner. That does not mean that whenever a direction given in the Circular is violated, the contract entered into by the Bank would be invalidated. 19. Ext.P3 states that the OTS proposal made by the petitioner for Rs. 35.5,00,00/- has been accepted by the competent authority. The petitioner had no reason to disbelieve the authority or competency of the Regional Manager or Branch Manager of the Bank to enter into Ext.P3 settlement. The petitioner has acted upon Ext.P3 and has discharged his obligations under the agreement. Respondents 1 to 3 did not repudiate the OTS till the petitioner paid the entire amount payable under Ext.P3. Respondents 1 to 3 are therefore estopped from taking a stand that the OTS is void. 20. The judgments relied on by the respondents would not be of any assistance to them. In Prasad and another (supra), this Court was dealing with an agreement entered into under a mutual mistake. The mutual mistake must be as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement to render the agreement void. Violation of a policy advice by the Regional Manager or Branch Manager of the Bank, cannot be treated as a matter of fact essential to the Ext.P3 agreement. 21. The judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Rathnam M. and Others (supra) related to allotment of a plot which the parties to the agreement erroneously treated as one transferring title to the property. In the present case, the authority of Branch Manager or Regional Manager of the Bank to enter into OTS is not under dispute. The contention is that as per policy guidelines prescribed, they ought to have left it to be decided by their Corporate Office. The judgment of the Apex Court in Badrilal (supra) was a case of statutory in-competency of one of the parties to the agreement. The contention is that as per policy guidelines prescribed, they ought to have left it to be decided by their Corporate Office. The judgment of the Apex Court in Badrilal (supra) was a case of statutory in-competency of one of the parties to the agreement. The said judgment is also of no avail to respondents 1 to 3. 22. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to release all the documents deposited by the petitioner by way of security to the loan transaction covered by Ext.P3, within a period of one month.