JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Parvez, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Syndicate Bank. 2. The present writ petition is filed assailing a letter dated 07.10.2014 issued under the signature of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch. The further prayer made in this writ petition for issuance of a direction to release the title papers which were deposited before the Bank as a guarantor for a loan availed by the husband of the petitioner from the Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch. 3. The brief facts necessary for determination is that the borrower (husband of the petitioner) borrowed an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs) in the year 2004 from the Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch and the petitioner stood guarantor for the borrower and created a security by mortgaging an immovable property, a flat located at No. 11/6 Jheel Road, New Land at Kolkata which was valued at the relevant point of time to be Rs. 6,49,000/- (Six Lakhs Forty Nine thousand) only by deposit of Title Deeds. 4. During the currency of such loan, according to the petitioner, the borrower suffered different ailments and as a result, he could repay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) only and it is also the case of the petitioner that due to epilepsy and a brain tumor, the borrower i.e. the husband of the petitioner could not operate his business and accordingly, the petitioner by a communication dated 22.03.2012 requested the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch to settle the loan for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) only, though, according to the petitioner, there was no intimation to the petitioner for any default in the payment of loan on the part of the husband. It is also the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.2.50 Lakhs was also deposited by her. 5. Thereafter, the Chief Manager at Regional Office, Recovery Cell, issued a communication dated 09.08.2012, to the Branch Manager at Shillong proposing certain course of action regarding the OTS proposal and deposit of an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs by the petitioner. The same shall be at an appropriate stage. 6. 5. Thereafter, the Chief Manager at Regional Office, Recovery Cell, issued a communication dated 09.08.2012, to the Branch Manager at Shillong proposing certain course of action regarding the OTS proposal and deposit of an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs by the petitioner. The same shall be at an appropriate stage. 6. Subsequently, by a communication dated 06.11.2012 issued under the signature of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, it was informed to the petitioner that the competent authority has sanctioned the OTS proposal of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 13,15,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and Fifteen thousand only) with the terms and conditions enumerated therein, which shall also be dealt at the appropriate stage of this judgment. 7. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had deposited the entire OTS amount of Rs. 13,15,000/- (Thirteen Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) and the overdue interest of Rs. 95,237/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Seven Only) as advised by the Branch Manager, however, the title deeds has not been released to the petitioner. 8. After such payment being cleared, on 19.08.2014, the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch addressed to the Dy. General Manager, Recovery Department, RO, Guwahati, sought permission for closing the loan account and to return the security documents to the guarantor. 9. However, by a communication dated 16.08.2014, the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, asked the petitioner to deposit an amount of outstanding liability of Rs. 27,96,158.19/- with an allegation that the OTS proposal was not satisfied in terms of the sanction, i.e., the entire amount of Rs. 13,15,000/- was not paid within 90 days from 06.11.2012 and there was no request for extension of time before the expiry of 90 days. 10. Being situated thus, the petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman by filing a complaint. The Banking Ombudsman by its order dated 19.09.2014 observed that there are deficiencies of service from the bank’s part and that the Bank had failed to communicate with the complainant properly and therefore, Bank agreed to the request of the complainant to arrive for a mutual settlement in this case at the earliest. Accordingly, the case was closed under Clause 11(1) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. 11. Thereafter, the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, again issued a communication dated 07.10.2014, making a demand of payment of Rs. Accordingly, the case was closed under Clause 11(1) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. 11. Thereafter, the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, again issued a communication dated 07.10.2014, making a demand of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) for final settlement based on their assessment of the value of the mortgaged flat at Kolkata and also for the consideration that the outstanding liability now was shown to be Rs.2,14,39,73.92/-. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 12. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the OTS scheme submits that from the conditions of OTS dated 06.11.2012, it is clear that the petitioner had made a down payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the OTS was for Rs. 13,15,000/-. The balance amount was to be paid within a period of 90 days from the communication of the sanction i.e. 06.11.2012. However, there is a specific provision in the OTS that the petitioner is to pay delayed period interest @ base rate from the date of communication of sanction of OTS, if entire amount is not paid within 90 days. Therefore, it is contended by Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the terms itself stipulates that it is permissible to make payment beyond 90 days, however, with an additional payment of interest at the base rate, which the petitioner complied. 13. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contends that such term was rightly interpreted by the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, inasmuch as by communication dated 19.08.2014, it was unequivocally admitted that the petitioner has paid the entire outstanding dues of Rs. 13,15,000/- and also paid delayed period interest for the delay. However, even after such payment, the system was showing an outstanding of Rs. 20,80,557/- and such defect was required to be corrected and documents were to be returned back. Therefore, according to Mr. Das, learned senior counsel at this stage, the Bank cannot resile from their unequivocal promise to the detriment of the petitioner and claim another Rs. 5 Lakhs, only for the reason that the valuation of the property has gone up. It is the further contention of Mr. Therefore, according to Mr. Das, learned senior counsel at this stage, the Bank cannot resile from their unequivocal promise to the detriment of the petitioner and claim another Rs. 5 Lakhs, only for the reason that the valuation of the property has gone up. It is the further contention of Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that though writ Court may not be justified in putting its own terms and condition in an OTS entered into between the parties, however, this Court in exercise of power of its judicial scrutiny can very well read down such terms and conditions and resultant arbitrary actions of the Bank. 14. On the other hand, Mr. A. Parvez, learned Standing Counsel for the Syndicate Bank, vehemently argues that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the OTS and therefore, in terms of the Clause 4 and 5 of the OTS dated 06.11.2012, the Bank has rightly demanded the aforesaid amount. 15. Mr. Parvez, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperatives Bank Limited, Bijnor and Others –Vs- Meenal Agarwal and Others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 805 , argues that no borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit under One Time Settlement scheme and if such, right is given, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India – Vs- Arvindra Electronics Private Limited reported in (2023) 1 SCC 540 Mr. Parvez, learned Standing Counsel argues that extension of time to make payment beyond the time granted under sanctioned OTS scheme by the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible, nor any rescheduling of payment under the OTS can be ordered by a Writ Court which shall result in modification of a contract between the parties. Therefore, this Court may not exercise its power of judicial review to rewrite the contract already entered between the parties and may not change the terms of the OTS dated 06.11.2012. 16. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. Therefore, this Court may not exercise its power of judicial review to rewrite the contract already entered between the parties and may not change the terms of the OTS dated 06.11.2012. 16. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. At the outset, it is recorded that there is no quarrel on the proposition of law that the benefit of OTS scheme cannot be prayed as a matter of right and the same is subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as determined by the Bank. There is also no quarrel on the proposition of law that a contract entered into between two parties resulting in an OTS cannot be modified or changed or certain new conditions can be imposed in question in the shape of direction by a writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. However, it is equally well settled that though scope of judicial review in respect of a Govt. Contract is not a matter of course, but in a given case when the action of the State is grossly arbitrary and discriminatory, there is procedural impropriety and violation of law, the writ court shall not be powerless to exercise its power of judicial review. 19. By the communication dated 09.08.2012 the process of One Time Settlement was initiated and being relevant the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “SYNDICATE BANK INTER/INTER BRANCH MEMORANDUM REGIONAL OFFICE Recovery Cell 2 FLOOR D&H TOWER MRD ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 To Chief Manager Our Shillong main Branch PH 0361-2654461 ?? 2654465 FAX 2654466 Ref: 2501/GRO/REC/2012 Dear Sir, Date, 09/08/2012 Sub Action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 A/C Hans raj Jain. As per request of your branch we got the secured assets situated at Kolkata valued with the help of RO Kolkata, it was reported that the party had offered for OTS and deposited Rs2.50 lacs as down payment. But till date neither we have received OTS proposal for sanction nor for review. You have also not kept us informed about the developments in the matter. Now please inform us whether OTS proposal has been received by you and if so what the present status is. if no OTS proposal received please issue notice under SARFAESI Act immediately following the guidelines of the bank. Please ensure the followings before issuing notice U/S 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 1. Now please inform us whether OTS proposal has been received by you and if so what the present status is. if no OTS proposal received please issue notice under SARFAESI Act immediately following the guidelines of the bank. Please ensure the followings before issuing notice U/S 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 1. If any correspondences for OTS or repayment are pending at your end please reply the same first before issuing notice. If any proposal given by the borrower, legal heirs, if any or guarantors which is not acceptable to you, the same shall be replied/rejected and informed the parties concern before issuing notice under SARFAESI Act. 2. Notice shall contain date of NPA, reason for declaring the account as NPA etc. We have already given you detail guidelines, format etc., during managers conference and the same shall be followed, if any assistance is required please contact us. Please report compliance immediately. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours Faithfully Chief Manager”. 20. What is discernible from the aforesaid communication is that the secured asset was valued and there was a report that the petitioner had offered for OTS with a down payment of Rs.2.50 lakhs. It is further discernible that till issuance of such communication dated 09.08.2012, the account was not declared as NPA and no action under SARFAESI was taken. 21. The communication dated 06.11.2012 sanctioning the OTS proposal is another important document having bearing on the arguments advanced and accordingly, same is reproduced hereinbelow: “SHILLONG BRANCH MUDA COMPUND POLICE BAZAR, SHILLONG, 793001 MEGHALAYA STATE TELE/FAX NO: 0364-2227348 Ref: 341/SGH/9400/REC/2012 dated 06.11.2012 To, Mrs. Nilima Jain W/o Sri H. R. Jain Sanul Haque Compound Upper Mawprem Shillong Madam We are pleased to inform you that the competent authority has sanctioned your OTS proposal dated 14" Sen 2012 for Rs. 1315000/-(Rupees thirteen lakh and fifteen thousand only). The details of the ternis a conditions have been furnished below for your reference 1. Down payment Rs. 25,000 shall be adjusted immediately on acceptance of the above sanction. 2. The balance offer amount shall be paid within 90 days from the date of communication of sanction to the party. 3. The party has to pay delayed period interest @ base rate from the date of communication of sanction of OTS if the entire offer amount is not paid within 90 days. 4. 2. The balance offer amount shall be paid within 90 days from the date of communication of sanction to the party. 3. The party has to pay delayed period interest @ base rate from the date of communication of sanction of OTS if the entire offer amount is not paid within 90 days. 4. If the dues are not settled as per the terms of sanction, the concession granted stands withdrawn automatically and the entire dues shall be recovered as per loan documents. 5. This is without prejudice to the banks right to recover the entire dues as per loan documents in the event of failure of the party to pay the compromise settlement amount as the terms of sanction. 6. No further request for change in the terms of sanction/extension of time will be entertained. 7. All other direct/indirect liability of the party shall be closed immediately. 8. The sanction of OTS is valid for 3 months on payment of delayed period of interest as per rules. 9. The mortgage documents/security documents shall be returned to the party after clearance of the liabilities. 10. The party shall withdraw all cases /appeals /writs /complaints, if any, filed against the Bank. 11. All other terms and conditions as per guidelines shall also be applicable. Yours faithfully. Chief Manager.” 22. From the communication dated 06.11.2012, as quoted herein above in the understanding of this Court, the OTS was accepted at a final amount of Rs. 13,15,000/-. A down payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- already made was to be adjusted on acceptance of the scheme. The balance amount was to be paid within 90 days from the date of communication i.e. 06.11.2012. Thus, the balance amount was to be paid by 06.02.2013. Another condition was that, if the entire offer amount is not paid within 90 days i.e. within 06.02.2013, the party is to pay a delayed period of interest at the base rate. Another clause is that the sanction OTS is valid for three months on payment of delayed period of interest as per rules. 23. What is discernible is that the petitioner is to pay an amount of Rs. 10,65,000/- within 06.02.2013 after adjustment of the down payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. If there is any delay in payment of the said amount and is paid beyond 06.02.2013, the payment for the delayed period shall carry an interest at the base rate. 23. What is discernible is that the petitioner is to pay an amount of Rs. 10,65,000/- within 06.02.2013 after adjustment of the down payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. If there is any delay in payment of the said amount and is paid beyond 06.02.2013, the payment for the delayed period shall carry an interest at the base rate. In terms of Clause-8, the OTS shall be valid for 3(three) months on payment of delayed period of interest i.e. the delay cannot go beyond 3 (three) months from 06.02.2013. 24. The similar view as determined by this Court as aforesaid was also taken by the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch, which is clear from his communication dated 19.08.2014, relevant portion of such letter is quoted herein below: “We would like to bring to your kind notice that one OTS was sanctioned per your letter No: 3291/RO-GHY/REC/2012 Dated 06/10/2012 in reference to our 341/SHG/9400/REC/2012 pertaining to loan ac no-94007510001423 of Sri Hanjraj Jain Prop-M/S Exim International. The borrower has already paid the entire OTS sanctioned Amount of Rs. 13,15,000/ in various dates from the date of our communication. We confirm that he has also paid the delayed period interest by 27.05.2014 due as per our norms. However the account was not closed on 27.05.2014. It is still outstanding in the system having an amount of Rs.20, 30,557.79 (as on date) as unrealized interest. It may also kindly be noted that the direct liability of Sri Hanjraj Jain and the indirect liability of Smt. Nilima Jain becomes nil on closure of the captioned account. However, the indirect liability of Sri Hanjraj Jain will continue-be there as he stood guarantor for one other old NPA account. Smt. Nilima Jain is demanding her documents back immediately. She also visited RO Law cell to discuss the matter a moth ago. In the light of above we request you to permit us to Reverse the outstanding unrealized interest amount of Rs.20,80,557.79 and close the account. Permit us to release the security documents (mortgage papers) of the Guarantor Smt. Nilima Jain. 25. From the aforesaid communication it is clear that the bank has unequivocally admitted that the entire amount was paid on various dates and there was delay and the delayed period interest was also paid. 26. Above that, the Banking Ombudsman also held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. 25. From the aforesaid communication it is clear that the bank has unequivocally admitted that the entire amount was paid on various dates and there was delay and the delayed period interest was also paid. 26. Above that, the Banking Ombudsman also held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Such findings have remained un-assailed. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, and in the totality of the matter, the payment under OTS was made in terms of the OTS scheme dated 06.11.2012, which was admitted in unequivocal term by the competent authority in the Bank under its communication dated 19.08.2014, and therefore, the bank cannot be allowed to demand further amount from the petitioner. Therefore, such action of the Bank demanding further amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is nothing but an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. Accordingly, such action is required to be interfered with. 27. In the considered opinion of this Court in the case in hand, the petitioner is not seeking any modification of the terms of the OTS nor the petitioner is seeking any fresh OTS, what is her challenge is that she had satisfied all the conditions of the OTS, paid the money due from her, which has duly been accepted by a competent authority of the Bank and in spite of such admitted position, for almost last 10 years, her title documents are not released and at the same time, taking advantage of her larger bargaining capacity, now the bank is demanding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is not permissible under the OTS scheme and such action is an arbitrary action. 28. From the facts recorded hereinabove and the determination made, this court is of the unhesitant view that the issuance of the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and refusal to hand over the title documents, in the given facts of the present case are grossly arbitrary action on the part of the Bank. When the Bank Authority has duly acknowledged and admitted payment of entire due as per the terms of OTS, at a later stage such demand of the bank based on the subsequent increase in the valuation of the property cannot be resorted to by a nationalized bank. 29. When the Bank Authority has duly acknowledged and admitted payment of entire due as per the terms of OTS, at a later stage such demand of the bank based on the subsequent increase in the valuation of the property cannot be resorted to by a nationalized bank. 29. This court cannot remain oblivious that public money cannot be allowed to be wasted in the hand of defaulter borrowers, however, at the same time when a nationalized Bank agrees to certain terms and conditions for settlement of a loan account and when the borrowers fulfill such condition and subsequently the competent authority in the Bank admits such compliance, the bank cannot be permitted to act in the manner, they have acted in the present case by demanding Rs. 5,00,000/-for return of the title papers. 30. Accordingly, for the determination made and reason recorded, the present writ petition stands allowed with the following directions: I. The impugned communication dated 06.11.2012 stands set aside and quashed. II. The Bank more particularly, Chief General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shillong Branch shall forthwith return the security documents deposited in connection with the loan secured by the husband of the petitioner under Account No. 94007510001423 and settled in terms of OTS dated 06.11.2012. III. If such documents are not returned to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the Bank shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner as cost and compensation. IV. The bank shall do the needful for closure of the account No.94007510001423 within the period stipulated hereinabove.