IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.08.2011 LPA No. 1449 of 2011 (O&M) M/s Ajay Agro Products …..Appellant Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation & another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: - Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.03.2011, whereby the writ petition seeking quashing of memos dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-16) and 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-17), was dismissed. The appellant availed loan from the Punjab Financial Corporation. The appellant defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. Vide communication dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-7), the Corporation has informed the appellant that an amount of Rs.7,02,300/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.70,23,000/-) was payable by 31.03.2005 as per One Time Settlement Scheme framed. The appellant has not deposited the said amount. In fact, the appellant vide letter dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure P-8), sought time to deposit the full and final amount on or before 30.04.2005 and vide Annexure P-9 to deposit the same amount by 30.06.2005. The said settled amount was not deposited as per the communications of the appellant. LPA No.1449 of 2011 (O&M) The appellant filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.19138 of 2006 before this Court and in terms of the interim order deposited Rs.5 lakhs. The amount of Rs.4 lakhs was deposited later i.e. on 12.03.2007. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 05.11.2007, when the petitioner sought some time to approach the Corporation to make an appropriate application. Subsequently, the appellant was communicated that the Corporation does not have any One Time Settlement Scheme, therefore, the amount mentioned in the aforesaid letter is payable by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, inter alia, for the reason that this Court has declined to interfere in the previous writ petition based on One Time Settlement Scheme of the year 2003. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to claim the benefit of said One Time Settlement Scheme in the present petition. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that new Settlement Scheme has been launched and if advised, the appellant can take benefit of the said scheme. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in other cases, the Corporation has accepted the amount settled in One Time Settlement Scheme after delay. Reference is made to certain judgments of this Court, wherein this Court has directed the acceptance of the settled amount on payment of simple interest. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Vide letter dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P- 7), the appellant was informed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,02,300/- on or before 31.03.2005. May be, the sufficient time was not available, but the appellant has undertaken to deposit the full and final amount firstly on or 2 LPA No.1449 of 2011 (O&M) before 30.04.2005 (Annexure P-8) and later by 30.06.2005 (Annexure P-9). But admittedly, the amount conveyed to the appellant on 30.03.2005 has not been deposited. The appellant failed to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement even as per its own offer, therefore, there is no equity in the favour of the appellant, which may warrant intervention of this Court. Apart from the said fact, the earlier writ petition claiming benefit of Settlement Scheme stands withdrawn. Once the writ petition is withdrawn, the appellant cannot raise the issues, which were available to the appellant at the time of withdrawl of the writ petition, in the subsequent petition. In view of the above, we do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant interference in appeal before this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.08.2011 Vimal 3