ORDER : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. Heard Smt. Ch.Laxmi Chaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Meher Prasad, learned counsel for respondent-State Bank of India (SBI). 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a declaration that Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 2.1 of the SBI OTS Scheme, 2021 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Scheme’) is arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and consequently to quash the same. Further prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. 3. Before we advert to the prayer made by the petitioner, we may mention that petitioner had availed loan from respondent-SBI in the year 2011. SBI had sanctioned an overall limit of Rs.9,00,00,000.00 as loan amount to the petitioner. It is stated that for various reasons, there was default on the part of the petitioner in repaying the loan amount. Despite request of the petitioner for re-schedulement of the loan, SBI classified the loan account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), following which demand notice dated 14.07.2012 was issued to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the SARFAESI Act’). This was followed by issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 13.09.2012. It is stated that against such steps taken by SBI, petitioner had filed W.P.No.12007 of 2013 before the Karnataka High Court. By order dated 08.03.2013, Karnataka High Court had stayed further proceedings, which interim order was made absolute on 01.10.2013. 4. Respondent-SBI filed application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the 1993 Act’) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) for recovery of dues from the petitioner amounting to Rs.7,40,07,798.00 with interest and costs. The said application was registered as O.A.No.312 of 2014. The said O.A. was decreed on 05.06.2017 in favour of the applicant-SBI. 5. SBI has issued the related Scheme for recovery of outstanding dues. The said Scheme provides for a schedule of time lines. The said application was registered as O.A.No.312 of 2014. The said O.A. was decreed on 05.06.2017 in favour of the applicant-SBI. 5. SBI has issued the related Scheme for recovery of outstanding dues. The said Scheme provides for a schedule of time lines. The time line for intimation to all eligible borrowers was 31.01.2022; last date for receipt of application under the Scheme was 21.02.2022; and the last date for conveying sanction under the Scheme is 28.02.2022. The Scheme provides for settlement of loan accounts in the manner provided. Clause 2.1 of the Scheme deals with cases not eligible to be covered under the Scheme. According to learned counsel for the petitioner and as per the prayer made, Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 2.1 of the Scheme is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. For a better appreciation of the contention as made, it would be apposite to extract Clause 2.1 of the Scheme in its entirety, which is as under: “2.1.Cases not eligible to be covered under the scheme. (i) Central Govt./State Govt. Guaranteed Accounts will not be considered under the Scheme. (ii) “Compromise Settlement cases” where repayment has already commenced as per the agreed terms, are not eligible. However, cases of failed Compromise Settlement where the amount is not received within the stipulated time can be considered afresh. Cancellation of failed compromise letter to be issued to the borrower before considering application under OTS. (iii) Any case admitted in NCLT will not be eligible. (iv) Units under Liquidation will not be eligible. (v) Units where Decree awarded by DRT will not be eligible. (vi) Accounts declared as Fraud will not be eligible. (vii) Accounts declared as Wilful Defaulters will not be eligible.” 6. From the above, we find that Clause 2.1 of the Scheme enumerates classes of cases which are not eligible to be covered under the Scheme. As per Sub-Clause (ii) “Compromise Settlement Cases” where repayment has already commenced as per agreed terms, are not eligible under the Scheme. However, cases of failed compromise settlement where the amount is not received within the stipulated time can be considered afresh; for this cancellation of failed compromise letter has to be issued to the borrower before considering application under the One Time Settlement (OTS). 7. However, cases of failed compromise settlement where the amount is not received within the stipulated time can be considered afresh; for this cancellation of failed compromise letter has to be issued to the borrower before considering application under the One Time Settlement (OTS). 7. Pausing here for a moment, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was earlier OTS between the petitioner and SBI, but for non-payment on agreed installments as per the sanctioned terms, the OTS was treated as failed, which was intimated to the petitioner by SBI vide letter dated 09.08.2021. Therefore, being a case of failed compromise settlement and having letter of the SBI to that effect, petitioner’s case for settlement under the Scheme would be covered under Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 2.1 of the Scheme, meaning thereby that petitioner would be eligible under the Scheme. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, Sub-Clause (v) comes in the way of eligibility of the petitioner. 8. As noticed above, Sub-Clause (v) says that those units where decrees have been awarded by Debts Recovery Tribunal would not be eligible under the Scheme. It is this Sub-Clause which has been challenged by the petitioner as being arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that these two Sub-Clauses i.e., Sub-Clause (ii) and Sub-Clause (v) are contrary to each other and therefore, Sub-Clause (v) would have to be interfered with. 9. We are afraid we can accept such contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. As alluded to herein above, Sub-Clause (ii) deals with a situation where earlier there was OTS between the borrower and SBI, but such OTS had failed for non-repayment of agreed installments by the borrower and to that effect, there must be a letter issued by SBI to the borrower. 9.1. Till this point of time, we do not find any difficulty in understanding or interpreting Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 2.1 of the Scheme. However, when we look at Sub-Clause (v), it is evident that the situation contemplated under Sub-Clause (ii) would have to give way in a case where a decree is awarded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Entering into a compromise for settlement (OTS) is a private contract between the borrower and the secured creditor. However, when we look at Sub-Clause (v), it is evident that the situation contemplated under Sub-Clause (ii) would have to give way in a case where a decree is awarded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Entering into a compromise for settlement (OTS) is a private contract between the borrower and the secured creditor. On the other hand, a decree awarded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is an order of a quasi judicial authority discharging judicial functions under the statute. In the event of conflict between a private contract and a decree of a statutory Tribunal, it goes without saying that the decree of a statutory Tribunal will prevail. There can be no manner of doubt on this proposition. If this is the position, we fail to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is contradiction between Sub-Clause (ii) and Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 2.1 of the Scheme. In fact, a conjoint reading of the two provisions will make it clear that Sub-Clause (ii) is conditioned by Sub-Clause (v) i.e., Sub-Clause (ii) is subject to Sub-Clause (v). In other words, in those cases where decrees have been awarded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the benefit of Sub-Clause (ii) would not be available. 10. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that there is no legal infirmity in Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 2.1 of the Scheme; not to speak of being vitiated by any element of arbitrariness or discrimination. Consequently, the challenge thereto fails and resultantly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.