THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1755 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The present Writ Appeal is filed against the Orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19611 of 2007, dated 18.11.2008, which was filed questioning the Orders passed by the respondents dated 13.10.2006 rejecting the case of the appellant’s sick unit under OTS its LN/SVRSC/2006-07/1015 and also publication dated 28.8.2007 as illegal. The case of the appellant is that the Corporation has issued a publication in the local dailies for settlement of loans under “One Time Settlement Scheme” by waiving the interest. Pursuant thereto, the appellant made a representation on 31.12.2003 for settlement under OTS and paid Rs. 4,50,000/- towards 15% of the amount outstanding against its loan account as per the conditions prescribed under OTS scheme. However, the request of the appellant for settlement under OTS was kept pending for a long time and ultimately by order dated 13.10.2006, the appellant was informed that its request for settlement under OTS was rejected. Further 10 days time was granted to the appellant to clear of all the arrears and regularize the loan account invoking Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Questioning the same, the writ petition was filed and the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the said Order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As can be seen from the judgment under appeal, prior to the order under challenge, at the first instance the appellant has filed W.P.No19932 of 2005 challenging the sale notice dated 16.8.2005 issued by the respondents. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed that no legal infirmity or factual inaccuracy was pointed out in the impugned notice and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the said Writ Petition No. 19932 of 2005 on 12.09.2005 has passed the following directions: “Learned counsel for the petitioner made repeated appeals that his client is prepared to deposit the amount said to have been fixed as one time settlement. This Court intends to give him a last chance to prove his bona fides. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the further steps, in pursuance of the impugned notice, shall be deferred by four weeks. In case, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs upto that date, the sale of the unit shall not be proceeded with and it shall be open to the petitioner to make representation for the remaining part of the liability.” The appellant herein without complying with the said directions of the learned Single Judge has moved the impugned writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings of the corporation dated 13.10.2006 in rejecting the appellant’s proposal for One Time Settlement as illegal. As can be seen from the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant did not pay the amount of Rs. 34 lakhs as directed in the order passed in Writ Petition No. 19932 of 2005. The learned Single Judge further found that the appellant herein is a chronic defaulter, the action of the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s request for OTS cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. The learned Single Judge observed that though the impugned order of rejection was passed on 13.10.2006, the writ petition was filed after about an year on 13.9.2007, after a sale notice was published by the Corporation on 24.8.2007. Though the writ petition was listed on 14.9.2007 for admission, no interim orders were passed restraining the corporation from proceeding with the sale notice. The learned single Judge has observed that there is no arbitrariness in the order passed by the Corporation also. Having held so, we do not find any merits in the contention raised by the appellant to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 24.3.2009 CHV