M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - - (a) For an appropriate writ/order/ direction for quashing the resolution dated 16 -11 -1994 (Annexure 7) taken by the executive committee of the Corporation, as contained in item 5223 relating to the petitioner -industry to the extent it imposes a condition of payment of Rs. 3.24 lakhs for settlement of the accounts of the petitioner's unit with the Corporation pursuant to the Board's item No. 11721 dated 30 -6 -93 on the ground that the condition of payment of Rs. 3.24 lakhs by the petitioner for settlement of his account under one Time Settlement Scheme of the Corporation pursuant to item No. 11721 dated 30 -6 -1993 is in violation of the said resolution and also the subsequent circulars issued by the Corporation for One Time Settlement Scheme and the same is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of the settled principles of law. (b) For iurther appropriate writ/order/ direction for quashing the letter dated 3 -12 -1994 (Annexure 6) issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner for paying Rs. 3.24 lacs to the Corporation for settlement of its entire dues pursuant to the Board's resolution dated 16 -11 -1994. (c) For quashing the order dated 10 -1 -1996 as contained in memo No. 6158 issued by respondent No. 2 pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 1394/95R, inter alia, holding that the decision taken by the Executive Committee is in order and, accordingly, the petitioner is directed to settle its account for payment of a sum of Rs. 3.24 lacs to the Corporation, on the ground that while passing the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration many irrelevant materials and the impugned order has been passed in total violation of the order passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 1394/95 (R). (d) For an appropriate writ/order/ direction declaring that the dues of the petitioner's unit under two loan accounts stand discharged/liquidated inview of the fact that the Corporation has accepted thepetitioner's proposal for settlement of his dues under One Time Settlement Scheme floated by the Corporation in August, 1993 and for further direction to the respondent Corporation to issue a 'No Dues Certificate' to the petitioner and to further release the mortgaged deed executed by the petitioner with the Corporation on 2 -8 -1977, the original copy of which is lying with the Corporation.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in 1977 he was allowed loan of Rs. 2,81,000/ -by the respondent Corporation and again in the year. 1979 a second loan of Rs. 25,000/ -was given as against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 86,000/ -. In 1993 the Board of Directors of the Corporation approved a scheme laying down a general policy of One Time Settlement with the defaulting unit. According to the said scheme benefit was given by charging reduced rate of interest. Under the said scheme the petitioner applied to the Corporation for one time settlement. The application of the petitioner was processed and the Corporation agreed to settle the entire dues under One Time Settlement on payment of Rs. 3.24 lacs. On 12 -12 -1994 the petitioner filed his objection to the said offer before the Assistant General Manager of the Corporation. The petitioner raised objection on the ground that as per the reduced rate of interest applicable in One Time Settlement, nothing is payable by the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant General Manager. The petitioner challenged the said decision by filing CWJC No. 567/95(R). The writ application was disposed of on 9 -3 -1995 with a direction to the respondent No. 3, the Assistant General Manager of the Corporation to examine the objection raised by the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing speaking order. In compliance of the aforesaid direction the Assistant General Manager reconsidered the objection of the petitioner and disposed of the objection on 30 -3 -95 holding that the dues was calculated after taking into consideration the interest payable by the petitioner. The authority further held that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for payment of principal amount advanced by the Corporation. The authority, therefore, again held that the Executive Committee rightly decided to settle the dues of the petitioner in 'One time Settlement' on payment of Rs. 3.24 lacs. The petitioner again disputed the correctness of the decision dated 30 -3 -1995 passed by the Assistant General Manager by filing CWJC No. 1394/95R reiterating that as per the calculation made by the Corporation the ; petitioner is not liable to pay any further amount for getting the benefit of 'One Time Settlement'. This Court disposed of the said writ application on 14 -11 -1995 holding that it was difficult for the Court to enter into the correctness of the calculation made by the Corporation in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 alongwith the detailed calculation made by him and respondent No. 2 was directed to dispose of the matter once for all within three weeks and, thereafter the parties would be governed by that order. For better appreciation the relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow; - - 'After that order was passed, the petitioner's representation was disposed of vide order dated 30 -3 -1995 contained in annexure 11, By that order it is stated that under the O.T. scheme the petitioner is to make further payment to the board for getting the benefit of one time settlement. But according to the petitioner, as calculation made by the B.S.F.C. the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the B.S.F.C. for getting benefit of one time settlement rather as per the admitted calculation of the B.S.F.C., the petitioner is entitled to get refund. In para 41 of the writ petition the petitioner has given a calculation showing that he is to get back payment from the Corporation and not he is to pay back the sum of Rs. three lacs and odd as stated in Annexure 11. It is difficult for this Court to enter into such calculation in the writ jurisdiction. If there is any wrong on the admitted calculation and principles, the petitioner is liable to get relief of one time settlement without making any payment but to get refund and then B.S.F.C. is bound to do so. The writ petition is disposed of askingthe petitioner to appear before respondentNo. 2 within a week next along with a copyof this order and detailed calculationmade by him on the basis of admittedcalculation of the B.S.F.C. as per annexure 5 itself and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the matter once for all within three weeks next and the parties would be bound be that order. With this observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.' Again the Managing Director of the Corporation to whom direction was issued, entertained the calculation submitted by the petitioner after taking into consideration the scheme and came to the same conclusion in its order dated 16 -1 -1996 that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3.24 lacs. The Managing Director further recorded a finding that the benefit of interest to the extent of Rs. 93,000/ - was given to the petitioner and after giving that relief the dues came to Rs. 3.24 lacs.
(3.) CURIOUSLY enough, in the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution dated 16 -11 -1994 whereby petitioner was held liable to the extent of Rs. 3.24 lacs, when the said resolution was not quashed by this Court in the earlier two writ applications. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 3 -12 -1995 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3.24 lacs for settlement of the entire dues which was also not quashed by this Court in the earlier two writ applications.;