IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13712 of 2011 M/S Magadh Lamp Industries,At Bhabhua Katiya Near Aerod Ram Jahanabad, P.S. & Distt. Jahanabad Through Its Propietor Krishna Ballav Sahay Lt. Budheshwar Pd. Mandavi, Ps. & Distt. Jehanabad …. Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Financial Cor. , Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Patna Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director 2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, B.S.F.C. Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Patna 3. The General Manager, B.S.F.C. Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Patna 4. The Manager, Finance, B.S.F.C. Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Patna 5. The Deputy Zone Iv, Manager Finance B.S.F.C. Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Patna 6. The Branch Manager, B.S.F.C. Magadh Branch Peer Mansoor, Premises Of Arwind Press Opp. Zila School Gate Gaya Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Raju Giri and Nikhil Agrawal, Advocates -------- 03/ 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging that part of notice dated 25.08.2010, issued by the Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Magadh Branch, Gaya ( hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity), by which the petitioner was threatened withdrawal of the offer made by the said notice and penal action under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) as amended in 2006 and for directing the respondent-authorities to accept the repayment of loan amount in One Time Settlement (OTS) as offered by the authorities by the said notice dated 25.08.2010 or easy instalments after the interest is waived 2 off and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said impugned notice and raises various points, but it is not in dispute that offer was given to the petitioner vide the impugned notice dated 25.08.2010. Although the petitioner has stated that the said notice was not received by it immediately thereafter, but it has not stated anywhere as to when it received the said notice. 4. It further transpires that OTS Scheme came in the year 2009 and the last date for filing an application for availing the said scheme was fixed as 15.11.2010, but no application was filed by the petitioner within that date or immediately thereafter before the authorities concerned and it has filed this writ petition much belatedly on 19.08.2011. 5. In this connection, a Division Bench order dated 22.03.2010 passed in L.P.A. No. 277of 2008 is relevant to be referred to, specially paragraphs no. 16, 17 & 18 thereof, which read as follows :- “16. In this context it would be useful to take into account the scope of Circular no. 02/04-05 dated 11.11.2004 wherein it was provided that the last date of filing OTS application had expired on 25.5.2005 but the Respondent writ petitioner did not choose to file his application. 17. It is also significant to note here that another OTS Scheme was floated by appellant B.S.F.C. vide its Circular no. 5/06-07 dated 15.7.2006 in which last date for filing application was 2.11.2006/2.1.2007 wherein it was provided that the period of the said OTS Scheme was extended subsequently by Circular no. 07/06-07 dated 4.11.2006 upto 11.12.2006 but the Respondent writ petitioner did not file his application even in response to this OTS Scheme. 18. Admittedly, the last date of application under OTS 3 Scheme vide Circular No. 2 of 2004-05 referred to and relied by the Respondent writ petitioner in his writ petition had expired on 25.5.2005 much earlier prior to the sale notice dated 30.1.2008 and the writ application filed by respondent- writ petitioner assailing the same on 12.2.2008. In such circumstances, a direction to the Corporation to settle the dues of respondent-writ petitioner in a non-existing OTS scheme on date of passing the impugned order cannot be sustained. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the Corporation to do something by way of One Time Settlement which is not permissible in law and that too against non- existing OTS Scheme in vogue.” 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere into the matter and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to apply before the authorities concerned to fix easy instalments for payment of the entire dues with interest. If such an applications is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today before the Managing Director of the Corporation, the said authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two months thereafter. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)