JUDGMENT : K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J This intra-court appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.26956/2024 dated 09.09.2024. The appellant herein is the Idukki District Police Co-operative Society Ltd., 7 th respondent in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner, Rasheed A. K., had availed four loans from the appellant, Idukki District Police Co-operative Society Ltd. and defaulted the repayment. The writ petitioner/1 st respondent had claimed benefits under various One Time Settlement Schemes [for short, ‘OTS Schemes’] for clearing the outstanding loan amount. The last OTS Scheme announced was under Ext.P14 circular dated 07.06.2024. The request submitted by the writ petitioner/1 st respondent was turned down by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Society as per Ext.P20 communication. Thereafter, 1 st respondent approached the writ Court claiming the following reliefs: “(1) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P20 letter issued by the Assistant Registrar General, Idukki. (ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the benefits under Exhibit P14 Circular or Exhibit P10 to P13 Circulars as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to form the committees including society level Committee required to be formed under Exhibit P10-P14 circulars and pass appropriate orders on claim for one time settlement by the petitioner with in a time frame fixed by this Honourable court. (iv) Direct all coercive proceedings including Exhibit P15 to P18 Execution proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending finalization of the one-time settlement of the petitioner's loans in accordance with Ext. P10 to P14 circulars.” 3. The contention of the petitioner was that, during 2023 itself, the OTS benefit was extended to the 1 st respondent as per Ext.R7(a) and the same was not been acted upon by the 1 st respondent. It was also contended that the Society is running at a loss and therefore, is not obliged to extend the benefits under Ext.P14 circular. 4. The pith and substance of the contention of the writ petitioner/1 st respondent is that, the benefits under Ext.P14 circular has to be extended to the defaulters. 5. The learned Single Bench considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P14 circular and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. The learned Single Bench considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P14 circular and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner supported the judgment of the learned Single Bench. According to the learned counsel, no interference is warranted in this matter. 7. On the other hand, Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is patently illegal, unsustainable and incorrect. Adv.P.C.Sasidharan submitted that the benefit of OTS Scheme has already been granted to the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner as evident from Ext.R7(a) on 13.12.2023. The writ petitioner did not make any payment pursuant to Ext.R7(a). Therefore, 1 st respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit under the subsequent OTS Schemes. The learned counsel submitted that, once the OTS Scheme expired, there is no enabling provision to extend the Scheme after the date of its expiry. 8. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 9. The short question involved in this Writ Appeal is that whether the writ court can issue a writ of mandamus, compelling the Bank/financial institution to extend the benefit of O.T.S. Schemes? 10. Before further discussion, it may be useful to refer the scope and ambit of the O.T.S. Schemes and the scope of interference in a writ proceeding. In Union Bank of India v. Panchanan Subudhi [ (2010) 15 SCC 552 ] , the Apex Court opined that when the defaulter failed to abide the terms of one-time settlement, there was no justification for the High Court to entertain the Writ Petition and that too, by ignoring the fact that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 17 of the Act. 11. In State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics (P) Ltd. [ (2023) 1 SCC 540 ], the Apex Court observed that the re-scheduling of the OTS Scheme would tantamount to modification of the contract which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Contract Act. 11. In State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics (P) Ltd. [ (2023) 1 SCC 540 ], the Apex Court observed that the re-scheduling of the OTS Scheme would tantamount to modification of the contract which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Contract Act. Such re-scheduling of the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In Bijnor Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal [ (2023)2 SCC 805 ], the Apex Court held that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of OTS to a borrower. 13. The ratio decidendi culled out from the aforesaid decision would clearly indicate that the borrowers availing the benefit of OTS Scheme is bound by the terms and conditions of the Scheme. If the borrower had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme, the writ court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the bank/financial institutions to extend the benefit of OTS Scheme. The relationship between the banker and the customer is based on the contract. If the Writ Court interferes in the contractual relationship between the banker and the customer, it would result in rewriting of the contract, which is impermissible by a writ court. 14. In Dr.Raj Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College Bihar Sharif and Others [AIR 1962 SC 1210] , the Apex Court observed that, writ of mandamus may be issued to compel authorities to perform a duty only if it is shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on them and that the aggrieved party has a corresponding legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. The same observation was reiterated in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coopertative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and Others [ AIR 1977 SC 2149 ] and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder lal Jain and Others [ AIR 2008 SC 1339 ] 15. The same observation was reiterated in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coopertative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and Others [ AIR 1977 SC 2149 ] and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder lal Jain and Others [ AIR 2008 SC 1339 ] 15. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the Co-operative Society to reconsider the claim of the borrower under Ext.P14 circular which has already expired. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment reads thus: “16. The stand of the 7th respondent with reference to Ext.R7(c) is now to be considered. It is contended that the 7th respondent is running at a loss, and therefore, as permitted in paragraph No.6 of the Circular, it was decided not to extend the benefits under the Circular to cases where execution/arbitration steps are taken. But first of all, Ext.R7(c) makes reference to 2022-23 FY, to state that it is running at a loss. The petitioner, in his reply, has pointed out that even for 2023-24, a reduction in interest is offered by the society. Apart from this, it is noticed that Ext.R7(c) Managing Committee decision is taken on 09.02.2024, with reference to Circular 9/2024 and not with reference to Ext.P14 scheme. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application as regards the scheme framed under Ext.P14 Circular. 17. On the whole, I find no reason to sustain the proceedings at Ext.P20 issued by the 4 th respondent. 18. Therefore, Ext.P20 would stand set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, with specific reference to Ext.P14 Circular and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 19. In the meantime, all further proceedings for realisation of the dues against the petitioner would remain stayed, on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs within a period of three weeks from today.” In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the issues on facts and law in the correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands allowed.