IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14389 of 2010 M/S GANGA SOLVENT, Darjeeling Road, Kishanganj through its partner, Jugal Kishore Agrawal, son of Late Rawatmal Agrawal, residing at Kishanganj, P.S. Kishanganj, N.H.31, Kishanganj. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Fraser Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna. 3. Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation Purnea Branch, Purnea. 4. Sri A.K.Singh, Deputy Manager I/C (Zone II), Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna. …….Respondents. For the Petitioner: - Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, Adv. Sri Manik Vedasen, Adv. For BSFC :- Sri. K.D. Chaterjee, Sr. Adv. Sri. V.K.Tirpathy, Adv. ----------- 5 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 12.07.2010 (annexure 7) by which the incentive-cum- restructured amount was fixed at Rs. 6,79,779.40 (Rupees Six Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Forty only) and also for quashing the total dues as above mentioned in the said order and for allowing the petitioner to pay the dues of the Corporation as per their demand notice dated 20.08.2008 under the corporation’s One Time Settlement Scheme 2009. 3. In the year 1971 the respondents Corporation sanctioned term loan of Rs. 7.15 lacs to the partnership firm, 2 namely, M/S Ganga Solvent for setting up a small scale unit for manufacture of oil from seeds by solvent extraction process and the unit was started in the year 1973. The corporation sanctioned additional term loan of Rs. 2.80 lacs, out of which only Rs. 1.50 lacs was disbursed and balance lapsed. The petitioner claims that as substantial amount was paid and only a small amount of loan remained to be paid according to the account maintained by the corporation, which issued notice dated 24.02.1988 requiring the petitioner to pay the balance amount of dues comprising of principal dues of Rs. 55,391.56 and interest dues of Rs. 3,854.67 as well as Rs. 575.33 due on account of some inspection fee. However after rectification of the discrepancies the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 55,881.77 being the balance dues and the same was paid by the petitioner through Bank Draft. 4. It is further claimed by the petitioner that thereafter the corporation did not issue any notice with regard to dues of Rs.3,963.12 including the principal amount of Rs.2,915.61 vide demand notice dated 31.08.1991 (Annexure-2). However, there was a special scheme of incentive-cum- loan restructuring for clearing the dues for defaulters in the year 2008 whereafter the corporation issued letter dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure-5) 3 showing balance dues of Rs. 30,094.61 including the principal amount of Rs. 2,915.61 and availing it the petitioner within the prescribed time on 31.12.2008 filed application under the said scheme along with application money of Rs.3,500/- but thereafter no restructuring order was issued and hence as a precautionary measure the petitioner deposited a further amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 30.4.2010 (Annexure- 6). 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although earlier vide order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure-7) incentive-cum- restructured amount was fixed at Rs. 6,79,779.40 but subsequently, in September, 2010 recalculation was made by the authorities of the corporation who found the total outstanding balance of Rs. 70,085.56 including principal amount of Rs. 6,964.56 as on 28.02.2010. It is also stated that one time settlement scheme was started by the respondents on 17.08.2010 according to which principal amount plus 10% thereof was to be paid for final settlement of the loan amount and in-compliance thereof, the petitioner paid the said amount in October, 2010 during the pendency of this writ petition. Hence the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire loan amount has been settled under the aforesaid one time settlement scheme and no dues remains with 4 the petitioner. 6. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to coercive attitude of the respondents he had to deposit amounts on several occasion namely of Rs. 3,500/- on 31.12.2008 as application money for the special scheme where after he deposited Rs. 15,000/- on 30.4.2010 and also deposited Rs. 7,000/- under the O.T.S. scheme till October, 2010, although no amount was due and, in fact, the respondents have to refund huge amount to the petitioner. He submits that incentive was admittedly given in 1986 as per the counter affidavit of the respondents but the said incentive was said to have been withdrawn on recalculation of the amount by the authorities only after the filing of the writ petition. He relies upon a decision of this Court in case of M/S Naresh Metal Industries vrs The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, reported in 2009(2)PLJR-453, and submits that the incentive already given about more than two decades earlier cannot be recalculated even if some mistakes were committed on the earlier occasion in calculation of the amount, specially when there is no statement that the petitioner induced them to do so. In the said circumstances he submits that if incentive given to the petitioner in the year 1986 is restored, the petitioner 5 will be entitled to get refund of huge sum of money which he has deposited on several occasions. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the claim of the parties and the materials on record it is apparent that relief sought in this writ petition is against order dated 12.7.2010 and with respect to demand of Rs.6,79,779.40 and for one time settlement of the entire dues, but during the pendency of this petition one time settlement has already been made available to the petitioner, who has availed it and accordingly the respondents- corporation had specifically stated that they have no claim left for any amount against the petitioner. Hence no relief sought in this writ petition remains to be granted. 8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However if the petitioner has got any money claim against the respondents, which according to him, was with respect to payments made by him in excess of what was required in law, he will be at liberty to approach the relevant Court/authority for refund of the same, which shall be decided in accordance with law. Bhardwaj ( S.N.Hussain, J.)