ORDER : C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. This Writ Petition has been filed questioning an order in Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 passed by the 1 st respondent, Central Information Commission at New Delhi. 2. Even before proceeding into merits of the Writ Petition, the Court is under an obligation to answer one of the contentions raised on behalf of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents namely, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. It is contended that a similar order had been passed with respect to the same issue by the Central Information Commissioner and the Consortium of Banks similar to the petitioner bank had challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is therefore contended that this Writ Petition is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. In answer to that particular statement made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the respondent in Second Appeal No.CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 was the Indian Bank at Chennai. It is further pointed out that the earlier order passed by the Public Information Officer of the Indian Bank, erstwhile Allahabad Bank also related to the bank at Chennai. It is further pointed out that name of the public authority in the appeal before the Central Information Commission was given as the CPIO / PIO, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, 5 th Floor, Main Building, Chennai - 600 001. It is therefore contended that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. 4. The Writ Petition has been filed questioning the impugned order of the 1 st respondent, Central Information Commission, New Delhi wherein, in Second Appeal No.CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 by an order dated 31.10.2023, the 1 st respondent had directed that the petitioner herein should disclose the policy which they adopt for either acceptance or rejection of One Time Settlement. The reasoning of the 1 st respondent, could be reduced in their own words, which is as follows: “The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case which emerge from hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that though the respondent provided some information to the appellant in response to his queries, he is dissatisfied on account of denial of the primary query, viz. the restructuring policy of the Bank. the restructuring policy of the Bank. The reply given by the respondent with respect to the appellant's query about restructuring policy is erroneous because on the one hand they have decline response stating that the information sought was not specific while on the other hand, the respondent had claimed exemption under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondent failed to substantiate their case as to how the information about the restructuring policy was exempt from disclosure under (1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant contended that his primary query is limited to the general policy of the Bank for restructuring of loans and OTS policy, in order to repay his loan. The appellant is himself the guarantor and liable to repay the loan, hence, the information about OTS policy of the Bank is directly related to him. Hence denial of information by the Respondent to the affected party is legally untenable. Thus, it is hereby directed that the CPIO of the Respondent Bank shall provide the restructuring policy/OTS Policy which is currently in operation, to aid in the process of settlement of NPA by the borrower. Disclosure of information about OTS policy of the Banks, particularly with respect to NPAs is meant for public and it should be placed in public domain, in larger public interest thus facilitating expeditious recovery of the Bank's dues. Needless to state that by simple sharing information about the Bank's general policy of OTS/restructuring of loans, no right or power of the bank is likely to be adversely impacted, nor has the Respondent been able to justify the same. It is made clear that dissemination of information about the general policy of OTS/restructuring of loans has no bearing with any direction regarding grant of any benefit of OTS to the borrower. The grant of benefit under the OTS is always subject to the eligibility criteria mentioned under the OTS Scheme and the guidelines issued from time to time, as has also been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Bijnor Urban Co operative Bank Ltd. vs. Meenal Aggarwal. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment dated 24.09.1951 of the Apex Court in the matter of Harla vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it was held as under: “... Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulagated or published. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment dated 24.09.1951 of the Apex Court in the matter of Harla vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it was held as under: “... Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulagated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is; or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilized man. It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential....” In the light of the legal position propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish the restructuring / OTS policy to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within two weeks of the receipt of the order. The disclosure of the OTS Policy is specific to the facts and circumstances of this case and may not be treated as a precedent. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is decided accordingly. Copy of the decision be provided free of costs to the parties.” 5. A reading of the above would show that the 1 st respondent was of the opinion that the policy should be in public domain, since it is meant for the general public and in larger public interest, and if the policy is disclosed, it would only facilitate expeditious recovery of the dues. It was also stated that there could not be any justification for withholding information by claiming that if information is dwelged, it would adversely affect or impact the right or authority of the bank to examine any One Time Settlement. It was also stated that there could not be any justification for withholding information by claiming that if information is dwelged, it would adversely affect or impact the right or authority of the bank to examine any One Time Settlement. It had also been stated that any general information which is to be followed uniformly to all the customers of the bank must be published in the public domain and there cannot be any justification for withholding such information. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court while examining the report on 22.12.2023 had directed that since it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 or that it relates to Commercial Confidence and Trade Secrets of the petitioner, had granted stay of the order and by a subsequent order had directed the petitioner to produce a copy of the policy of the One Time Settlement in a sealed cover. It is now available in the Court. 7. The learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents insisted that the information which is sought has to be disclosed since the 3 rd respondent is a guarantor of the loan and is very much interested in ensuring that the offer made to settle the loan is accepted. It is admitted that the loans which had been availed had now been declared as a non-performing asset. It had also been admitted that parallel proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the amounts. It had been, however, stated that the 3 rd respondent, had come forward with a proposal to settle the entire dues and had forwarded a One Time Settlement proposal and there had been several meetings with the petitioner bank officials. However, the said proposal had been rejected and the 3 rd respondent had been directed to come up with a better proposal every time. It is contended that the 3 rd respondent is not able to ascertain what actually the petitioner wanted. It is further contended that the policy as such should therefore be disclosed, so that a better offer could be made to ensure that the offer of One Time Settlement is in consonance with the policy of the bank. It is contended that the 3 rd respondent is not able to ascertain what actually the petitioner wanted. It is further contended that the policy as such should therefore be disclosed, so that a better offer could be made to ensure that the offer of One Time Settlement is in consonance with the policy of the bank. It is therefore contended that the information could not be stated to be one which comes under the stipulations of Section 8 (1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however contended that production of this information would seriously affect the business of the bank and it is the right of the authority to accept or reject the One Time Settlement. It is also contended that if the value of the security available with the bank is higher than the amount which is due, then the bank has every right to reject the One Time Settlement and proceed against the security available with them. It is also contended that the policy as such cannot be disclosed, as it an internal decision of the bank to accept or reject the one time settlement. The fact that the bank must retain that particular leverage had been insisted upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents pointed out that there are several banks which had uploaded their policies in the website and in this connection had pointed out the instances of State Bank of India and Punjab and Sind Bank which had uploaded in their respective websites the general policy under which a One Time Settlement is accepted or rejected. The learned counsel further widened the arguments by drawing attention to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, titled Master Direction and the Reserve Bank of India guidelines to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Sectors, 2017. The Reserve Bank of India had very specifically stated that the Banks should give wide publicity to the One Time Settlement scheme implemented by them and must place it in the website of the Banks and through every other possible modes of dissemination. 10. The Reserve Bank of India had very specifically stated that the Banks should give wide publicity to the One Time Settlement scheme implemented by them and must place it in the website of the Banks and through every other possible modes of dissemination. 10. The learned counsel also pointed out the further guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, wherein it had been stated that One Time Settlement scheme should be non-discretionary and should be applied with the same yardstick to all the borrowers. The Reserve Bank of India had also directed that monthly reports of progress and details of the settlements should be submitted by the bank. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. 12. The Writ Petition has been filed a scheduled bank questioning the direction by the 1 st respondents, the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, to disclose the policy which is followed by the writ petitioner while examining and dealing with One Time Settlements. An One Time Settlement, is offered by debtors to Banks when proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or when the liability had been declared as non-performing assets. Even when the liability is alive, in order to settle the outstanding loan an One Time Settlement could be offered by the borrowers. The offeror is the debtor. The bank is the acceptor of such offer. Unless the offeror and the acceptor converge to a mutual point, an agreement cannot be reached between the parties. The bank can always reject the One Time Settlement. That right cannot be denied to them. Once the bank has a vested right to either accept or reject an One Time Settlement, it would require the borrower, in this case, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to go back to the drawing board and come back with a better offer. 13. It is also seen that, in this instant case, the matters are also pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Tribunal also encourages settlement of dues and recovery of dues at the earliest. It is not disputed that a mediation policy or a platform to examine settlement of the debt and to provide speedy recovery of the debt is available before such Tribunal. Every Tribunal, in this connection, encourages settlement of the debts without there being a protracted adverse litigation. 14. It is not disputed that a mediation policy or a platform to examine settlement of the debt and to provide speedy recovery of the debt is available before such Tribunal. Every Tribunal, in this connection, encourages settlement of the debts without there being a protracted adverse litigation. 14. The Reserve Bank of India had directed that the banks should publicize their One Time Settlement schemes. The One Time Settlement scheme is different from a policy. The policy is the guideline which the banks adopt and which is unique to each and every bank for laying yardsticks for acceptance of an One Time Settlement proposal put forth by a borrower. It would also depend on the quantum of the loan which is due, the bonafide of the debtor in offering the One Time Settlement, the expenses incurred by the banks in recovery process, the value of the securities which had been offered and also the probability of the bank recovering the due without adhering to the One Time Settlement. There can be compulsion on a bank that, whenever an offer is given, the bank must accept the same. The bank can always retain their discretion to either accept or to reject it. That there is a One Time Settlement policy, must be publicized. That is the purport of the guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India. They have stated that the banks must publish in their website that there is a scheme to put an end to an ongoing litigation or to the accrual of interest, and for a borrower to offering an amount as One Time Settlement. 15. There is no dispute raised that the underlying scheme of the One Time Settlement of the writ petitioner has not been publicized. It is only because, it has been published that the 3 rd respondent had come forward to give a proposal for One Time Settlement of the outstanding which the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents have with the writ petitioner. But the respondents seek the details of the policy of the Bank or the yardsticks adopted by the bank to accept or reject such One Time Settlement. 16. I am not able to understand the rationale behind such requirement. As a prudent businessman, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents would be aware that, the longer they delay in settling the loan, the interest component would only increase. 16. I am not able to understand the rationale behind such requirement. As a prudent businessman, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents would be aware that, the longer they delay in settling the loan, the interest component would only increase. Even if they were to read the policy of the bank, it will not freeze the interest which accrues and has accrued. It is to their own benefit, that they come forward with a settlement, which is acceptable by the writ petitioner bank. 17. Searching for the policy, to find out whether the earlier offers were in tune with the expectation of the bank would not take the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents anywhere. The banks will have different policy for larger industries. They may have a different policy when individual borrowers are concerned. They may have a different policy, when Micro, Small and Medium Industries are concerned. The policy would differ. It would also depend on the quantum of loan, which had been offered to the borrower. 18. I am afraid that, I am not inclined to accede to the views of the 1 st respondent that such a policy must be disclosed to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. The said policy is specific to each and every bank and specific to each and every borrower. Revealing the policy would not give a solution to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. 19. I therefore hold that the impugned order of the 1 st respondent cannot be sustained. There cannot be a direction to the petitioner bank to disclose their internal policies. So far as publicizing the scheme as such, I would concur with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India that the scheme must be published, but there is a thin line of difference between the scheme which is publicized and the policy under which the settlement is accepted or rejected. The order of the 1 st respondent is therefore set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner may file a memo before the Joint Registrar, Writ Section, High Court of Madras, seeking return of the sealed cover which had been forwarded by the writ petitioner. The same may be returned after getting due acknowledgment from the counsel on record.