WP(C) 6477/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U. B. SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a statutory body which too k a loan of 60 lacs from the respondent No. 1 for construction of business cum m arket complex at Dibrugarh under a Government project to offer opportunity to th e unemployed youths. As the petitioner could not repay the loan as per the agree ment, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (for short HUDCO Ltd.) , the respondent, filed the original application being O.A. No. 6/2005 seeking r ecovery of Rs. 1,46,39,808 along with 15% interest till realization. The aforesa id proceedings was contested by the present writ petitioner but ultimately the c ertificate was issued in favour of the respondent HUDCO Ltd. and accordingly a r ecovery proceeding has also been initiated. By this time, there was a proposal for one-time settlement which was worked out at Rs. 175.89 lacs as agreed by the Regional Office of the said financial Corpor ation HUDCO but subsequently, the same is said to be rejected by the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 at New Delhi. It is also pleaded that while rejecting t he prayer of one time settlement, the authority concerned did not assign any rea son for rejection of one-time settlement proposal. The petitioner by this writ petition asked for setting aside and quashing the or der of rejection of proposal of one-time settlement as forwarded by the Regional Office of the financial corporation HUDCO Ltd (Annexure- 9 to the writ petition ) and also for direction to accept the offer made by the petitioner for one-time settlement along with the interim prayer. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused t he relevant documents annexed to the writ petition including the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, dated 31.01.2008 passed in O.A. No. 6/2005. Upon going through the records, according to this court, the petitioner failed t o make out a prima facie case even to issue a notice to the respondents. Moreso, when any person takes loan from any financial institution including the financi al institution like the respondent No. 1, then the loanee is liable to pay the l oan amount as per terms and contract. However, it would not proper to this court to make any observation on the recovery prayer for one time settlement of the p etitioner in the instant case as that would affect the interest of the petitione r as well as respondent financial corporation, it would meet justice if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh repr esentation to the respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HUDCO al ongwith the order within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 2 shall pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner alongwit h certified copy of this order and till the disposal of representation of the pe titioner, the respondents shall not proceed with any auction sell of the propert y belonging to the petitioner as mortgaged with them. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. As the instant order is passed in absence of the respondents, the respondents ar e at liberty to approach this court either for modification, alteration or cance llation of this order, if so advised.