malafide, the Courts would not examine the reasonableness or otherwise of the terms of such scheme and substitute its opinion to that of the decision of the experts in the field. The only allegation made while assailing the introduction of OTS schemes was that the scheme is intended to help the big borrowers. This plea is not substantiated by producing necessary material, in the absence of which, we are not impressed by this submission of the learned counsel. Moreover, from the letters addressed by the RBI from time to time following its statutory inspections, reference to which was already made in the foregoing, we are wholly satisfied that though the bank is holding securities to cover the debts, substantial part of the loans has become unrealizable in view of the poor “asset quality” throwing the realisability of property mortgaged to the bank in doubt (letter dated 13.11.2003 of the Deputy General Manager, RBI, referred to supra). Even the writ petitioners admitted that as at present the bank is not in a position to repay the debts to its depositors. We do not therefore see any illegality in the introduction of OTS scheme, which is evidently done with a view to make a quick recovery of the loans to pay off the debts to its staggering number of about 1,31,000 depositors of whom 1,23,000 depositors, as given out by the learned Advocate General, are small depositors, each having deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- or below. Since the interest of the depositors is of paramount consideration, while examining the validity or otherwise of the OTS scheme, we have called for the details of the number of depositors, the amounts already repaid to them and the outstanding amounts. We are satisfied with the statement of the learned Advocate General that by implementing the OTS scheme, the depositors are neither denied any part of the principal amounts
