IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5129 of 2001 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS FINANCE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETATIAT, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, PATNA. ………………………………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH, PATNA, THROUGH ITS MANAGER. 2. BIHAR STATE LEATHER INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. BIHAR STATE LEATHER INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA. …………………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 10 13/4/2009 Heard the Learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Learned counsel appearing for the state Bank of India. The prayer made in this writ application reads as follows : - “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writs, order or direction to quash the order issued under the signature of Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna dated 22.11.1999 in R.P. No. 91 of 1999 arising out of P.T. No. 222 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 has been pleased to order the Revenue Accounts respectively of Sales Tax, State of Bihar, Excise, State of Bihar as maintained in the main 2 Branch of the State Bank of India, Patna is ordered to be attached and further ordered to file the compliance report.” When this writ application had been filed on 9.5.2001, the lis at least was surviving, in as much as, liability of the State Government, the petitioner, was sought to be at least raised. It was so because liability of the State Government was confined as a guarantor. During passage of time when the State Government under pressure or threat or coercion has made payment to the State Bank of India of the amount, nothing really survives for adjudication in this case specially when no amendment has been sought in the aforementioned prayer. Learned Advocate General would however contend that as the impugned action was taken pursuant to an order of Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal without notice to the petitioner, all that now he would like to press for the petitioner, State of Bihar, is that the State Bank India should treat the case 3 of the petitioner on the same footing and if there was/is a scheme at the relevant point of time for payment by one time settlement of the dues, the benefit thereof may be extended to the petitioner as well. Mr Sanjay would submit that the accounts in question has already been closed much before filing of this writ application and therefore such belated prayer for one time settlement may not be available to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court one thing is clear that the petitioner State of Bihar has already paid money but in case if at the relevant point of time when order of recovery was made against the petitioner, State of Bihar, if there was a scheme existing for one time settlement the petitioner, the State of Bihar ought to have been given its benefit provided it had fulfilled the necessary terms and condition in the policy of such one time settlement formulated by the Reserve Bank of India. That being so, this Court without 4 expressing any opinion on the merits of such claim of the petitioner State of Bihar of one time settlement, would only direct the State Bank of India to consider request of the State Government for grant of one time settlement within a period of three months from the date of such request. It goes without saying that in case the State Bank of India would reject the such request of the State of Bihar, the same will be backed by a reasoned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Abhay Kumar