ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No. 2 – Regional Manager, State Bank of India in classifying the account of petitioners as 'fraud' vide impugned declaration dated 02-11-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and to quash the consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned notification. 2. It is stated, petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and is in the business of leasing and infrastructure development, more precisely construction of projects such as roads, dams, etcetera; it availed credit facility of Rupees Two Crores and a bank guarantee of Rupees One Crore on 22-07-2011 giving collateral security of open land admeasuring 16940 square yards (Acs.3.20 guntas) in Survey Nos.158 and 162 in Kismatpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Rajender Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District which was purchased vide sale deed dated 29-05-2011. Subsequently credit facility was enhanced from two to three crores on 28-03-2013 by sanctioning asset-backed limit of Rs. Eight crores on 17-11-2014. It is stated, additional collateral security of residential open plot No. 46 admeasuring 268.66 sq. yards in Survey No. 109/A, Sitharam Nagar, Neredmet Block No. 32, GHMC, Malkalgiri Mandal, RR District was given. The sole proprietorship establishment was converted into a partnership firm and petitioners could not repay the loan as per schedule resulting in the loan account becoming NPA on 26-09-2015, with an outstanding balance of Rs.8.20 crores. 2.1. Petitioners state that at the time of pursuing the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, Respondent No. 2 bank came to know that both the collateral securities mortgaged with the bank were unenforceable and therefore the bank was unable to recover the outstanding amount. The respondent bank allegedly uncovered that the property subject of sale deed no. 1456 of 2011 dated 23-5-2011 was initially an agricultural land and the bank could not sanction ABL on the said land and further the bank also could not sanction CC facility based on mortgage of agricultural land as collateral security since it cannot be sold or disposed of and which do not come under the purview of SARFAESI Act. Despite petitioner submitting letter written to the RDO, Chevella, for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture, the bank authorities could not take the same into consideration and there are other title disputes. 2.2. Despite petitioner submitting letter written to the RDO, Chevella, for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture, the bank authorities could not take the same into consideration and there are other title disputes. 2.2. It is stated, regarding the second property mortgaged with Respondent No.2, it was alleged that the bank received legal notice disputing the ownership of petitioner No.2 and in addition, Respondent No.2 bank made further allegations against petitioner regarding siphoning of the loan amounts and bank guarantees by fabricating agreements and work orders. At this stage, the bank filed a criminal complaint with CBI (EOB), Chennai dated 02-03-2019 with FIR No. RC0692019. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed which is pending on the file of Hon'ble XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for CBI cases, Nampally, Hyderabad. They further stated they have applied for OTS but instead of considering the same sympathetically, the respondents registered the criminal case which is illegal and arbitrary. 2.3. It is also stated, petitioner firm submitted various representations to Respondent No.2 bank proposing One Time Settlement Scheme on 08.02.2016 and 17.04.2023 which were not considered by Respondent No.2, who, instead, reported the case directly to CBI. When petitioners through Manging Partner filed RTI query dated 15.05.2023, it was learnt that Respondent No.2 bank declared the account of petitioner as fraud vide FMSBI16040040 dated 02.11.2016 which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is not in the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal , 2023 SCC On line SC 342 3. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 11.09.2024 granted stay of operation of impugned order for a period of four weeks. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter stating that after availing various credit facilities, petitioners failed to repay the dues, which resulted in declaration of loan account as NPA. While initiating measures under SARFAESI Act against the secured assets, they came to know that the documents deposited by Petitioners pertaining to secured properties are fake, thereupon the Bank filed CBI Complaint dated 03.12.2016 against Petitioners. It is stated, the bank also filed OA No.2967 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs. 10,38,80,942/- together with interest, costs etcetera. The Tribunal by Order dated 05.07.2019 granted decree in favour of the Bank. It is stated, the bank also filed OA No.2967 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs. 10,38,80,942/- together with interest, costs etcetera. The Tribunal by Order dated 05.07.2019 granted decree in favour of the Bank. In the said order in Paragraph No.3, it is clearly stated that "while initiating measures under SARFAESI Act against the secured assets, the Bank came to know that the documents pertaining to OA schedule "B" & "C" properties are fake documents and there upon, Bank filed a CBI Complaint, dated 03.12.2016 against Petitioners. 4.1. It is further stated, after sanctioning loan and after creation of mortgage, on verification, it is noticed that Pahanies submitted by Petitioners are not genuine. The Conversion Certificate submitted by petitioners from Agricultural to non agricultural was also not genuine. In the absence of specific boundaries, measurements could not be identified. The 2nd Petitioner also furnished another property towards mortgage, i.e. land admeasuring 266 Square yards bearing plot No.46, situated at Seetaramanagaram, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal also has some disputes, which has no clear title. As the title documents and also the conversion certificate submitted by petitioners while availing loan facilities were not genuine, which was realized by the Bank during initiation of SARFAESI measures and hence declared the loan account of petitioners as fraud during 2016 itself. Loan was sanctioned in 2011, mortgage was created in 2011, loan account was classified as NPA on 26.09.2015. Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 28.9.2015, possession notice under Section 13 (4) was issued on 01.01.2016. During initiation of measures under the said SARFAESI Act, Bank noticed about the fraud played by petitioners, hence, declared the loan account as fraud in 2016 and reported to Fraud Monitoring Department for declaration of fraud and the said Fraud Monitoring Department had declared the account has fraud on 29.10.2016. 4.2. It is further stated, the Fraud Monitoring Department sent Letter dated 12.05.2023 to Petitioners, stating that as per Clauses 8.9.4 and 8.9.5 of Master Directions on Frauds issued by Reserve Bank of India, Bank was not obliged to provide any opportunity of hearing before classification of the account as fraud and also not obliged to supply a copy of the order or Bank proceedings which is confidential in nature, therefore, the Bank has not violated any guidelines / directions issued from time to time by the competent authorities. In the said Letter, in Paragraph 8, it is also stated that "in respect of your reliance on the judgment given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7300/2022, I submit that, the judgment is strictly binding upon the parties in the case wherein, Hon'ble Supreme court has upheld the judgment, dated 10.12.2022 of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not given any directions to any party or to the Banks / Financial institutions in general for abiding the said judgment retrospectively. As admittedly, you are well aware that in your case, fraud proceedings were initiated and concluded in 2016 which is well before the passing of the aforesaid judgment, dt.27.3.2023. Hence, the said judgment, dt.27.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no impact in the present case as at the time of declaration of fraud, the judgment has not been delivered. Thereafter, the Fraud Monitoring Department also sent another Letter, dated 15.09.2023, reiterating the reasons for classifying the loan account as fraud; (a) Deposit of fake, fabricated and forged documents with an intent to cheat the Bank for the purpose of availing credit facilities form the Bank for which you / the company were otherwise ineligible. To substantiate, we draw your attending to the following forged and fabricated documents submitted at your end for availing the loans. 1) Fake, fabricated and forged conversion Certificate bearing Memo No.81/2394/2008, dt.29.12.2008 purported to have been issued by RDO, Chevella Division in respect of property comprising of 16940 Sq. yds located at Sy.No.158 & 162, Kismathpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. This was submitted for availing asset backed loan of Rs.8.00 Crores from Sbl, for which property has to be mandatorily non agricultural. The RDO concerned has confirmed vide Leter No.H/7242/2015, dt. 14.12.2015 that the said conversion certificate is fake and that the signatures of the certificate were not that of the RDO. Fake, fabricated forged link documents in respect of property comprising of (3.2 gts in Sy. No. 158 & 162). The Pahani patrikas submitted by you in the name of Ajeeja Begum is not recorded in respect of Sy. No. 134, 135, 136, 158, 159, 160, 162, 179 and that the names of Mohd Abdul Ghani Naik, Mohad Khasim, Mohd. Mustafa, Nayak Juber, Mohd Abdul are also not recorded in respect of Sy. No. 158 & 162). The Pahani patrikas submitted by you in the name of Ajeeja Begum is not recorded in respect of Sy. No. 134, 135, 136, 158, 159, 160, 162, 179 and that the names of Mohd Abdul Ghani Naik, Mohad Khasim, Mohd. Mustafa, Nayak Juber, Mohd Abdul are also not recorded in respect of Sy. No. 134, 135, 136, 158, 159, 160, 162, 179 for the year 1998, 1999, 2001-2002, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 of Kismathpur Village, Pahanies furnished by you showing Smt. Ajeeja Bugum as pattedar are fabricated. Deputy collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal vide Letter, No.C/601/2016, dt. 28.4.2016 that the pahani reords submitted in this regard are not issued from the office the Dy.collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and that the entries shown in the said records are not genuine. You had deposited title deed No. 1456/2011, dt. 23.5.2011 for creating mortgage over property comprising of 266 Sq. yds in plot No.46 situated at Seetaramanagaram, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal. However, at the time of taking symbolic possession it was found that the property was in the name of Sri T. Buchi Ramulu from 1975 onwards as per Doc. No.2142/1975, dt. 16.7.1975. iv) Therefore, classification of the loan account as fraud was due to the submission of forged, fabricated documents by the petitioners at the time of availing loans with an intention to cheat and for collusing with valuer for creating an inflated valuation report. Because of fraudulent activities of petitioners, Bank is unable to enforce mortgage as the title /ownership of petitioners has been confirmed to be defective and in possession of third parties thereby putting the Bank to loss. The Letter, dt. 15.9.2023 sent by Bank is filed herewith. 4.3. It is stated further, petitioners did not challenge the action of the Bank in declaration of account as fraud in 2016 or in 2019. In 2025, they filed this Writ Petition challenging the declaration of fraud pertaining to 2016, hence, at this belated stage, petitioners are not entitled to challenge the same. According to this respondent, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal is not at all applicable to the present case since the judgment is passed in 2023, whereas, the fraud played by petitioners was in 2011 itself, which was realized by the Bank in 2015-16 as the said judgment has no retrospective effect. In these circumstances, it is prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel and Sri C. Prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4. 6. Upon consideration of the rival pleadings, it is evident from the record that the loan was sanctioned in 2011, mortgage was created in 2011, the account was classified as NPA on 26.09.2015, SARFAESI proceedings were initiated in 2015–2016, and the declaration of fraud was made in 2016. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, after considering the material, passed a decree on 05.07.2019 in OA No.2967 of 2017, recording categorical findings that the property documents submitted by petitioners were not genuine and that the conversion certificate and pahani records were fabricated. These findings have attained finality. The pendency of criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No.RC0692019 and the charge sheet filed thereunder further underscores the seriousness of the allegations. 7. The contention of petitioners that declaration of fraud is vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted in view of the regulatory framework prevailing at the relevant point of time. The RBI Master Directions on Frauds, which governed the field in 2016, did not mandate a pre- decisional hearing prior to classification of an account as fraud. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal is misplaced, as the said judgment was rendered much later on 27.03.2023 and does not operate retrospectively to unsettle actions taken in accordance with the prevailing directions in 2016. Moreover, petitioners were aware of the declaration of fraud and the consequential proceedings, yet chose not to challenge the same for several years. 8. The plea that One Time Settlement proposals were not considered does not dilute the gravity of the allegations of submission of forged and fabricated documents. OTS is a discretionary policy measure and does not confer a vested right, particularly in cases involving fraud. The bank has placed cogent material to demonstrate that declaration of fraud was based on objective verification, confirmation from revenue authorities, and due internal processes. OTS is a discretionary policy measure and does not confer a vested right, particularly in cases involving fraud. The bank has placed cogent material to demonstrate that declaration of fraud was based on objective verification, confirmation from revenue authorities, and due internal processes. In view of the admitted default, the findings recorded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, the material indicating fabrication of documents, initiation of criminal proceedings, and the inordinate delay in approaching this Court, this Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of Respondent No.2 in classifying the account of petitioners as fraud in 2016. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to reopen concluded proceedings or to bypass statutory remedies, particularly when disputed questions of fact and allegations of fraud are involved. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.