IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8575 of 2004 M/s. Chitra Synthetics Private Limited VERSUS The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur & Another Date of Order ::: 27/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. Suresh Pareek, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Arya, Counsel for the respondents **** With the consent of both the learned counsel the writ petition itself is being heard finally. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application in the writ petition for the One Time Settlement in pursuance of the scheme published in the “Rajasthan Patrika” dated 17.12.2007 and on the same date the application was given by the petitioner for the One Time Settlement in pursuance of thereto. However, the same was rejected on 31.01.2008 on the ground that the authority has not considered favourably his request to recalculate the amount without penal interest. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reason has not been disclosed, whereas in other cases of similarly situated persons penal interest has been waived. Mr. Suresh Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Lavania Bore Wells Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Another, decided on 07.12.2005, wherein the interest amount fixed by the Court was 19.5%. The operative portion of the said judgment i.e. M/s. Lavania Bore Wells Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Another, decided on 07.12.2005, reads as under : “Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and looking to the status of the petitioner, I deem it proper to direct the RFC to issue a fresh statement of account after adjusting the entire amount deposited by the petitioner as stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.14,62,650/- subject to verification by the RFC. After adjusting the said amount, the RFC is entitled to recover the balance amount due against the petitioner with interest @ 19.5%. The petitioner is agreed to make the payment of such amount in three equal monthly installments within three months from the date of issuance of fresh statement of account. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim granted by this Court dated 25.07.2005 stands vacated.” The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the news published in the “Rajasthan Patrika” is not authentic Scheme of the Corporation and the representation dated 17.12.2007 has been rightly rejected on 31.01.2008. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that above judgment is not applicable in the present case. I have considered the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions made by the parties. I am of the view the rejection is by a laconic order without disclosing any reason and only a conclusion has been communicated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to issue direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2007 and pass speaking order. The petitioner is also at liberty to move fresh representation within a period of 15-days from today detailing out the names of the similarly situated persons in cases of which the penal interest has been waived. The respondents are directed to decide/consider the same also while deciding the earlier representation dated 17.12.2007 and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as indicated above. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/