IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3751 of 2011 Raj Kumar Sah, son of Late Viranchi Prasad Sah, resident of Choti Kasenganj Mirjanhat P.S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur…………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Dr. Manoranjan Sharma, The Zonal Manager Canara Bank, Circle Office Luvkush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. 2. G.S. Unnithan, The Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, Circle Office Lavkush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. 3. T. Chakravarti, The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bhagalpur. 4. Aditya Prasad, The Regional Manager/Authorised Officer, Canara Bank Muzaffarpur. 5. Chandan Kumar Choudhary, The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Bhagalpur. 6. The State of Bihar……………………..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 03/ 21.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for violation of the order of this court dated 15.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2411 of 2011 by which a liberty was given to the petitioner to file an application before the Zonal Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, Patna for One Time Settlement of the dues under the Scheme of 2010 and if such an application is filed by the petitioner before the said authority within 15 days from that date along with a copy of that order, the said authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law within two months thereafter. - 2 - 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of order dated 15.03.2011 passed by this court, he filed an application before the said authority on 28.03.2011 but thereafter nothing was done by the opposite parties nor the said application of the petitioner was decided and hence the specific direction of this court had been violated. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that the said application filed by the petitioner was not in accordance with One Time Settlement guidelines and was without offering any amount in his application, although it was necessary for the said purpose. He further stated that subsequently on 25.08.2011 (Annexure-B) the petitioner offered Rs.1,50,000.00 for One Time Settlement but the said application was rejected by the said authority on 25.08.2011 itself (Annexure-D) requesting him to improve his offer as per the One Time Settlement scheme so that it may be considered. 5. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that although in compliance of order of this court petitioner filed an application on 28.03.2011 (Annexure-2) but the said application did not fulfill the requirement as prescribed in One Time Settlement guidelines (Annexure-C) in which Clause-B was settlement formula. 6. In the said circumstances, the opposite parties - 3 - were quite justified in waiting for the offer of the petitioner with respect to a specific amount which was given by the petitioner later in his offer dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure-B) which has been rejected by the opposite parties, hence the matter has been decided by the authorities and for the delay caused in taking the said decision, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible. 7. From the settlement formula guidelines (Annexure-C), it is quite apparent that it required 100% of the Book Liability which included the amount due on the date of N.P.A. plus some interest, which in this case was on 01.04.2008. The amount offered by the petitioner was much less than what was required as per the said formula. In the said circumstances the authorities were quite justified in asking the petitioner to improve his One Time Settlement offer vide order dated 25.08.2011. 8. Considering the matter in its entirety it is not in dispute that the petitioner is covered under the One Time Settlement scheme and is not sure about what amount has to be offered and hence he must file an application before opposite party no.1 within 15 days from today, whereafter O.P. no.1 must supply the calculation to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and one month thereafter the petitioner will file his application with improved One Time Settlement offer as per the scheme which shall be considered and decided by the said authority within - 4 - two months thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this petition is disposed of. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)