SBCWP NO.2876/2006 –M/S MARUDHAR INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2876/2006 M/s Marudhar Industries versus Rajasthan Financial Corporation. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Bhandari, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28th April, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the grievance in the present writ petition that the case of the petitioner was not considered under One Time Settlement Scheme by respondent – RFC though the respondent – RFC took the said application along with SBCWP NO.2876/2006 –M/S MARUDHAR INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 2/4 registration fee of Rs.2000/- deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated 11.3.2005 along with upfront fee of Rs.2,28,750/- vide Annex.6 dated 29.3.2005. The said receipt dated 29.3.2005 ofRs.2,28,750/- clearly recites that the same amount was paid as upfront fee for OTS. Despite this, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent – RFC under One Time Settlement Scheme for approximately one year and thereafter by communication Annex.7 dated 17.2.2006, the petitioner was informed that “your case has not found eligible for registration under current OTS Scheme. Hence, you are advised to make the payment of over dues in your loan account immediately.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondents during the course of argument submitted that vide circular No. FRNo.370 dated 30.11.2005, the Head Office of the RFC, Jaipur set down the eligibility for construction of case under One Time Settlement Scheme and as per the said eligibility criteria, the accounts categorized as “Doubtful” or “Loss” as on 31.3.2004 will be eligible provided last disbursement was made upto 31.3.2000, however, since the disbursement of loan to the petitioner was extended upto SBCWP NO.2876/2006 –M/S MARUDHAR INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 3/4 13.12.2001, therefore, his case was not considered eligible under the One Time Settlement Scheme. 4. I have heard the learned counsels. This Court is of the opinion that said condition determined by the RFC vide circular dtd.30.11.2005 could not be applied retrospectively. The case of the petitioner who applied for settlement under the One Time Settlement Scheme on 11.3.2005 and also paid upfront money of Rs.2,28,750/- on 29.3.2005. It is rather surprising that the respondent – RFC sat tight over the matter for a period of approximately one year and instead of considering the application of the petitioner under the OTS Scheme in the meanwhile suddenly informed the petitioner vide letter dtd.17.2.2006 that the case of the petitioner was not eligible for consideration under the current OTS Scheme. The public authorities, who are expected to act fairly, punctually and in objective manner were not permitted to sit tight over the said application for a period of one year and without assigning any reason, suddenly turn down the application in this manner. The reason supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of arguments by way of circular No.370 dated 30.11.2005 cannot be applied to the case of the SBCWP NO.2876/2006 –M/S MARUDHAR INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 4/4 petitioner since it would amount to putting a condition on the case of the petitioner with retrospective effect, which cannot be done. When the respondent – RFC accepted the upfront money on 29.3.2005 from the petitioner, it bound itself in law to consider the case of the petitioner under OTS Scheme then prevailing. Any adverse condition subsequently imposed by the RFC cannot be a ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the respondent RFC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the OTS Scheme as it existed on 29.3.2005 without the condition of circular dtd.30.11.2005 being made hurdle in the way of the petitioner. Such decision should be taken by the respondent – RFC after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent -RFC in this regard, he will be free to approach this Court by way of a fresh writ petition. 5. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.57 Ss/-