IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.653 of 2008 M/S BAIDYANATH CHEMICAL & CARBONIZATION Co. (P) LTD. Versus THE BIHAR STATE CREDIT INV.COR ----------- 04 08.08.2008 The petitioner has come to this Court against the actions of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. in not accepting payments and discharging the petitioner in terms of the settlement amount fixed under OTS (term loan)-2006 scheme. BICICO has appeared and filed counter affidavit. Parties have been heard and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Without referring to the past history, misconduct or misdemeanor on part of either parties a reference to Annexure-4, being letter dated 17.09.2007 of BICICO, the contents or the authenticity or the correctness, whereof, is not challenged by BICICO. It is apparent that as on 17.09.2007, petitioner was to pay a balance amount of Rs. 22.90 lakhs along with interest for delayed payment under the said scheme had to be made by 30th September 2007. This letter has a very significant part after aforesaid statement, which is quoted hereunder: “Further there is no Certificate Officer presently, in this Corporation. As soon as the appointment is made, efforts will be made to remove the seizure of your account with State - 2 - Bank of India, Pandra, AMY, Ranchi”. Here, it may be stated that earlier certificate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, in which bank accounts of the petitioner were seized by orders of the Certificate Officer, who was non else the Recovery Officer/Law Officer of BICICO itself. Petitioner was as such unable to either enjoys the facilities granted by its banker or utilize the account in any manner, much less, for the purposes of repayment of loan, so much so, that cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonored by the Bank because the accounts were frozen and the petitioner has to arrange the money from other sources to pay BICICO by bank drafts. It is in those situations petitioner had requested that once OTS settlement had been made the bank accounts should be released, so that he could avail all those facilities and repay the loan and make honorable exist. Regrettably, on the lame and malafide excuse, malafide in law, the bank accounts were refused to be released, even though, it was the order of the Recovery Officer/Law Officer of BICICO by which accounts had seized and could have very well been released by the orders of his superior Officers but were not done. Now, it is being said by BICICO that the OTS period having expired, the settlement would not be valid. Having considered the matter, I do not think that the actions of BICICO conformed the principles as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. BICICO is a State - 3 - instrumentality. In all its action it must conform to the principles of fairness and reasonableness as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and this is an example of gross violation, thereof. Once OTS settlement was reached BICICO was duty bound to release the bank accounts of the petitioner to enable petitioner to make good payments utilizing the facilities available to it under that account. On a wrong pretext it refused to do so creating obstacle for the petitioner to honor his part of the commitment. It is well settled that no party can be permitted to take advantage of his own default. Here is the default was committed by BICICO in not releasing the accounts, the consequences that follow was that the petitioner defaulted. Thus, for the fault of BICICO he is sought to be penalized, now, that cannot be countenanced by this Court. The action of the BICICO, per se, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, remedy to the petitioner cannot be denied. The only equitable remedy that is available to the petitioner and that can be granted by this Court is that the petitioner and BICICO would be bound by the terms of OTS (term loan)-2006, and the petitioner would liable to pay the said outstanding amount, as indicated in Annexure-4, above referred to Rs. 22.90 lakhs as on 17.09.2007 with interest amount for delayed payment as envisaged under the scheme itself and consequently BICICO would be obliged to accept the said payment and on payment being made would give a discharge certificate in this regard to the petitioner. - 4 - To effectuate this within 15 days BICICO would communicate to the petitioner’s banker about releasing all the accounts within three months of the receipt of the said communication by the petitioner’s banker. The petitioner would clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 22.90 lakhs along with accrued interest from 17.09.2007 up to date. If petitioner fails to punctually follow this it would be deemed that this order has not been passed by this Court. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)