IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.328 of 2009 1.BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRASER ROAD, PATNA. 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BHAWANIPUR, MOTIHARI (EAST CHAMPARAN 3.. THE DEPUTY MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA. 4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER I/C (2-1), BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA..... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. Versus 1. ANIL KUMAR VERMA SON OF LATE SIDHESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SATKAR HOTEL, BALUA BAZAR, MOTIHARI, P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN .......... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT IST SET 2. THE STATE OF BIAHR..... RES[PONDENT NO1- RESPONDENT 2ND SET ............... RESPONDENTS --------------- For the Appellant Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. For the Respondents :- 1. Mrs. Sushmita Mishra 2. Mr.Krishna Ballabha Sharma & 3. Mr. Surya Narain Sah, Advocates. ------------------------ 4 7-7-2009 Heard the parties. The writ petitioner who is respondent herein has borrowed money from the Bihar State Financial Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’) in the year 1990 to open a hotel in the town of Motihari. The business could not run with success and hence in September, 2006 when the corporation came forward with One Time Settlement Scheme ,2006 ( OTS), the writ petitioner deposited the required ten per cent of the dues and applied for settlement of his dues under the OTS 2006. When the offer of the writ petitioner was accepted by the Corporation, the writ petitioner prayed for grant of one month’s further time for paying the dues in full. The - 2 - concerned authorities of the Corporation gave a cryptic reply to the writ petitioner that extension of time was not possible under the provisions of the OTS Scheme. Since, the prayer for extension of time was not allowed, the settlement amount of Rs.2,71,171/- could not be paid by the writ petitioner and for that his hotel was to be sold in terms of Section 29 of the Act for an amount of Rs.28 lacs. The writ petition was allowed by the order under appeal mainly on the basis of facts appearing on the record that in different circumstances and for different reasons some applicants under the OTS 2006 had been given extended time for payment of different kinds of dues. On that basis the writ court held that under the OTS 2006 the authorities were not totally powerless to grant one month’s extension to the writ petitioner. While allowing the writ petition the writ court directed that the writ petitioner should deposit the OTS amount of Rs. 2,71,171/- within one month and thereafter the Corporation would calculate the interest for the delay in payment of this amount although delay beyond one month was not attributable to the petitioner, who was ready and willing to pay the amount within one month of extended time. The interest was permitted to be calculated by the Corporation at the rate of 12% per annum. On intimation of the interest amount the writ petitioner was required to pay the same within one month of the communication. Through a supplementary counter-affidavit filed in this appeal on behalf of respondent/writ petitioner it has been disclosed that the Corporation has received the amount of Rs.2,71,171/- which - 3 - was deposited by the writ petitioner within the time granted by the writ court and thereafter a further amount of Rs.69,211/- by way of interest as per calculation of the Corporation has also been deposited and received by the Corporation on 30-1-2009. On behalf of Corporation learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the writ court has taken a view which is contrary to the scheme of OTS 2006 and the reasons assigned by the writ court that power of extension of time was exercised by the Corporation in the cases of some others suffers from lack of appreciation. That time was extended on account of some OTS Scheme which provided accommodation of those persons in different categories of settlement. After considering the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit etc. the writ court appears to have arrived at a correct conclusion that the Corporation was not power-less to grant extension of one month’s time on terms and conditions which could be reasonable. A statutory Corporation, which is in the business of advancing loan and offering OTS Scheme to realize reasonable amount from the defaulters must consider reasonable prayer for extension of time by one month may be by subjecting the applicant to condition like payment of higher interest or further interest for the extended period. The bona fide of the applicant could have also been tested by asking for depositing of any part of the dues but the reply that the Corporation had no power under the scheme does not satisfy the test of reasonableness and the writ petitioner rightly felt aggrieved when it came to know that some other persons had been given such - 4 - Naresh accommodation and money had been accepted from such other persons beyond the time fixed by the OTS,2006. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of subsequent developments showing that the principal dues under the OTS as well as further interest as calculated by the Corporation has already been paid by the writ petitioner/respondent herein, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and order of the writ court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but without costs. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) ( Anjana Prakash, J )