IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 17018 of 2010 1. M/s. Mahabir Aluminium Industries through its proprietor Sri Ram Krishan Sharma at Mela Road, Farbesganj, District-Araria (Old Purnea) 2. Sri Ram Krishan Sharma (aged about 67 years), son of Late Arjun Ram Sharma, resident of – Mela Road Farbesganj, P.S. Farbesganj, District- Araria (Old Purnea) Proprietor, M/s. Mahabir Aluminium Industries ……………………………… Petitioners Versus 1. Bihar State Financial Corporation through its Managing Director, at Frazor Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation at Frezor Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna 3. Assistant General Manager (Rehabilitation), Bihar State Financial Corporation Frazor Road, Patna-1, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna 4. Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation Purnea Branch, Purnea, P.S. and District- Purnea 5. Branch Manager, State Bank of India- Forbesganj Branch, AT & P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria …………….. Respondents. ---------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the BSFC : Mr. M.K.Thakur, Advocate. ---------------------- 2. 6.10.2010 The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC). The claim of the petitioners is that in the said letter wrongly the principal outstanding (POS) of Rs. 8,36,100.43 has been shown as against the POS of Rs. 6,42,077.53 and further a demand has been made to the 2 petitioners to make payment of 15% of the initial amount of the restructured amount including the application money under the ILRS Scheme 2009, i.e., Rs. 2,38,091/- within one month from the date of issue of the order, i.e., latest by 3.9.2010 and on failure, to face the consequences. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 had taken loan from BSFC of certain amounts in the year 1988 and thereafter. Subsequently it became defaulter and a huge amount of interest and penal interest became due and outstanding in the said Account. On 26.6.2008 the BSFC came out with Circular No. 1 of 2008-09 and floated an Incentive-cum-Loan Restructuring Scheme (ILRS) 2008 which was extended further and renamed as ILRS 2009. The petitioners applied under the said scheme and by order dated 14.9.2009 their application was allowed and as against total dues of Rs. 1,25,51,151.43 the incentive –cum- restructured amount was fixed at Rs. 20,20,608/- in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down therein. The petitioners were required to pay 15% of the incentive-cum-restructured amount of Rs. 2,38,091/- within one month from the date of issue of the said order, i.e., by 3.9.2010. It was further intimated that in case of dispute in the restructured amount, 3 the petitioners can submit their points of dispute in writing with documentary evidence within one month from the date of issue of the order but the same must be submitted with a demand draft of 15% of the incentive-restructured amount as stated earlier and the other quarterly instalments as fixed in the schedule given in the order shall also continue to be paid until the matter was examined by the Finance & Account section at the Head Office of the Corporation in consultation with the concerned Branch Manager and the final order will be passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation; the decision of the Managing Director shall be final. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the details given by the Branch Office submits that the principal outstanding is only Rs. 6,42,077.53 and not Rs. 8,36,100.43 as stated in the order dated 4.8.2010; the petitioners, therefore, filed a petition dated 18.8.2010 before the Managing Director raising a dispute in the matter. Admittedly the amount of 15% was neither deposited by the petitioners along with the said petition nor within the time limit i.e., 3.9.2010. The petitioners still raise a grievance that no action has been taken on their petition. On a consideration of the ILRS Scheme, 2009 4 particularly clause (xxi) thereof it is evident that the order dated 4.8.2010 has been passed in accordance with the conditions laid down in the said Scheme. Since the petitioners had applied and sought to obtain benefit under the said ILRS Scheme, 2009 then all their liabilities are also to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the said Scheme. In the said circumstances, the petitioners’ application raising a dispute ought to have been accompanied with demand draft of an amount equivalent to 15% of the incentive-restructured amount including the application money already paid and the same not having been done, it was not required of the authorities of the Corporation to have taken any steps with respect to the petition dated 18.8.2010 of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in ignorance the petitioners have not taken steps in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Scheme while raising the dispute and the petitioners may be permitted to deposit the amount within a reasonable time and the necessary enquiry and decision be taken by the Managing Director thereupon. On a consideration of the entire facts and 5 circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners deposit the balance of the 15% re-structured amount, i.e., Rs. 2,38,091/-within three weeks from today, then the authorities of the respondent-Corporation shall consider the dispute raised by them in accordance with the provisions of the ILRS-2009 and the Managing Director of the BSFC is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of deposit of the balance amount along with a copy of this order. Any instalment that may fall within the said period of two months shall also be paid by the petitioners in terms of the order dated 4.8.2010 of the BSFC. The writ application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)