IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15569 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 11, 2011. M/s Ajay Agro Products .....Petitioner versus Punjab Financial Corporation and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pardeep Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the memos dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-16) and 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-17) as well as a direction to the respondent-Corporation to close its account as having been settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme (for short the 'OTS'). 2] Vide the first communication dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-16) the respondent-Financial Corporation has informed the petitioner that there was no One Time Settlement Scheme at that time in terms whereof, the petitioner's loan case could be settled and that it should deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.15,75,802/- alongwith interest from 15.2.2008. Vide the subsequent notice dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-17), the Corporation has proposed to initiate proceedings under Section 29 of the C.W.P.No .15569 of 2008 2 State Financial Corporations Act against the petitioner. 3] The genesis of controversy arises out of the term loan of Rs.10 lacs advanced by the Corporation to the petitioner which was sanctioned on 9th October, 1997. It appears that the petitioner having failed to discharge its loan liability, its claim was considered under One Time Settlement Scheme floated by the Corporation on 26th March, 2003 (Annexure P-6) and in terms thereof, the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.7,22,300/- by 31st March, 2008. The petitioner concededly failed to deposit the said amount on or before the cut off date due to which One Time Settlement could not be materialized. It further appears that the petitioner thereafter offered the agreed amount and deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs followed by another deposit of Rs.5 lacs in terms of the ad- interim order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by this Court in the previous round of litigation, i.e., Civil Writ Petition No.19138 of 2006 filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated November 5, 2007 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Corporation with an appropriate application. The petitioner, thereafter, represented for settlement of its account under the One Time Settlement Scheme but the said application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 1.4.2008 informing that there was no One Time Settlement Scheme existing at that time. 4] On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 2.2.2011, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that during the pendency of this writ petition, a new One Time Settlement Scheme has C.W.P.No .15569 of 2008 3 been floated by the State Government and the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner, if so advised, could avail the said Scheme. Liberty to this effect was granted to the petitioner on 2.2.2011 itself. 5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the earlier One Time Settlement Scheme of the year 2003 or the amount deposited subsequently in terms of the directions issued by this Court. I say so for the reason that the One Time Settlement Scheme was subject to the terms and conditions contained therein and since the petitioner failed to deposit the due amount by the cut off date, the benefit admissible under the OTS Scheme could not be extended to it nor the cut off date could be relaxed in favour of the petitioner. The fact that this Court declined to interfere in the previous writ petition wherein the petitioner's solitary claim was based on the previous One Time Settlement Scheme of the year 2003, fortifies the view taken above. Similarly, the petitioner could not compel the respondent-Corporation to introduce a new One Time Settlement Scheme unless such a Scheme was launched by the State Government or the Corporation in public interest. In my considered view, the respondent-Corporation has acted in the most fair manner in offering the benefit of new One Time Settlement Scheme of the year 2010/2011 thereby enabling the petitioner to approach it for settlement of its account under the said OTS Scheme. 6] For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner that in case the One Time C.W.P.No .15569 of 2008 4 Settlement Scheme is still available, it may approach the Corporation for settlement of its account. 7] Ordered accordingly. 8] Dasti. March 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE