Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner through its Managing Director has moved this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction to the respondents to order for rehabilitation of the petitioner a private Ltd. Company. 2. In order to appreciate the points involved in the present application, it may be necessary to enter into the domain of the contending claim of the respective parties put forward before this Court. Established in August, 1958, the company was registered with the Directorate of Industries, Bihar as a Small Scale Industrial Unit (S.S.I. in short). It was granted Cash Credit limit of rupees fifty thousand by its banker namely, Union bank of India (respondent No. 1) and immovable property of the company was mortgaged for such cash credit. After few months of the sanction, it is alleged that for some extraneous consideration, at the behest of the then Area General Manager of the Bank, the operation of the petitioners account was stopped arbitrarily and without any notice. Due to such stoppage and also strike of workers of the company, the unit badly suffered. In the year 1984 during the riot which took place also at Ranchi following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the premises of the company was damaged by some ante social elements resulting heavy loss to the petitioner. Several requests were made to the concerned authorities to intervene in the matter and direct the Bank not to discontinue the sanction advance facilities but no positive response came from any corner. Inspite of assurance of the Govt. of India to compensate the riot victims, the petitioner did not get any assistance/compensation for the said damages and ultimately the unit was closed. The petitioner approached the Bihar Sick Industries Association, Patna for some help and on 5.8.1989 the company was registered as Sick Unit by the Director of Industries, Bihar. The petitioner got rehabilitation package prepared through Bihar Sick Industries Association which was made under the scheme of assistance to small and medium industries by I.D.B.I. and its re-finance for rehabilitation. The Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter re-erred to as R.B.I.) also issued directions to all the scheduled Commercial Banks by its letter dated 6th February, 1987 for immediate rehabilitation of the viable sick units, Respondent No. 5 was requested by the District Industries Centre for rehabilitation of the petitioner-company. 3. The Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter re-erred to as R.B.I.) also issued directions to all the scheduled Commercial Banks by its letter dated 6th February, 1987 for immediate rehabilitation of the viable sick units, Respondent No. 5 was requested by the District Industries Centre for rehabilitation of the petitioner-company. 3. On the basis of the general direction of the Supreme Court as well as the RBI, the petitioner approached the respondents for immediate acceptance of its rehabilitation package and for sanction of the amount but as the respondents did not response to its request the petitioner moved this Court in CWJC No. 1283/91 (R) for issuance of direction for rehabilitation. This Court disposed of the same on 16.7.1991 and the petitioner again moved the respondents alongwith the said order by filing a representation which was kept pending for a long time. As the said representation was not disposed of, the petitioner preferred this application with the same prayer which was made by it in the earlier writ application. 4. At this juncture, it is to be noted that though there is no averment in the writ application that the respondents have taken any step against the petitioner for realising the dues, the petitioner made a prayer to the effect that the respondents may be restrained from taking any coercive step for recovery of dues. Before admission of this case on 10.2.1992 an interim order to that effect was passed by this Court. 5. The respondents, by filing counter-affidavit, have strongly countered the facts stated by the petitioner. Stand is that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court and got the interim relief. According to the respondents, on 2.7.1981 credit facilities were sanctioned to the petitioner to the extent of: I. Cash Credit ... Rs. 17,00,000 II. Supply Bills Purchase ... Rs. 20,00,000 III. Letter of Guarantee ... Rs. 2,50,000 and IV. Term Loan ... Rs. 1,65,000 Assurance was given by the petitioner to the Bank that its unit would comfortably achieve Body Building of 240 Vehicles per year. The petitioner availed almost all the facilities except term loan of Rs. 1,65,000 But even after availing those it did not comply with most of the important post disbursement conditions, for example stock Statements were not submitted and withdrawals were made disproportionately. The petitioner availed almost all the facilities except term loan of Rs. 1,65,000 But even after availing those it did not comply with most of the important post disbursement conditions, for example stock Statements were not submitted and withdrawals were made disproportionately. Several requests were made to the petitioner to ad-here with the financial discipline, proper maintenance of records, timely submission of stock statements and for increase in the production but all those requests were given a go by. In August, 1982 an inspection was held and several irregularities including short-fall of securities to the extent of Rs. 30,80,000.00 were found. The petitioner presented securities to the extent of Rs. 9,37,000 in respect of Credit Facility of Rs. 40,17,000.00 . Even then, in order to revive the petitioners unit pursuant to the direction of the RBI and scheme of the Government, the Bank sanctioned another additional capital facilities of rupees twelve lacs (12.00 lacs, in July, 1984 to the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of nursing programme and as such sanctioned limits could not be availed by it on regular basis. The Bank continued to extend ad-hoc facilities till 1986 even though adverse features were there and though said facilities were availed by the petitioner, it did not execute the order. Ultimately the Bank was compelled to ask the petitioner company to liquidate its outstanding dues of Rs. 64,00 lacs as the petitioner did not maintain the financial discipline. However, the Managing Director of the company in July, 1988 assured the Bank of producing documentaly evidence of firm orders and to deposit sale-proceeds at least Rs. 8.00 lacs to 10.00 lacs towards the loan within two months but the said assurance was not fulfilled. By its letters dated 28.8.1989 and 9.9.1989 the Chairman of the Bihar Sick Industries Association was informed by the authorities about the facts and circumstances as well as the attitude of the petitioner-company, which letters also indicate about the facilities for rehabilitation already extended and availed by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner had already availed the rehabilitation package from the Bank but this important fact was suppressed before the High Court when the petitioner moved earlier in CWJC No. 1283/91(R). It is asserted that the petitioner had already availed the rehabilitation package from the Bank but this important fact was suppressed before the High Court when the petitioner moved earlier in CWJC No. 1283/91(R). As no notice was served on the respondents by the High Court in the aforesaid writ application, on the basis of the direction of the RBI, this Court gave a direction to the Bank for providing fund to make the unit of the petitioner into a viable one. 6 Countering the claim of the petitioner that because of victim of riot, it is entitled to be compensated as per the order of the Supreme Court, it is stated that the petitioner does not come within the category of persons known as victim of riot as because its name does not find place in the list prepared and maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The allegation against the then Area General Manager of the Union Bank of India, Bombay has been categorically denied by staling that he was not at all concerned with the finance facilities of the petitioner directly. However, the said Area General Manager has left the services of the Bank. The alleged FIR filed by the petitioner as Annexure-4 has been assailed by saying that the said FIR is a concocted one and has been manufactured only to get benefit of the order passed by the Supreme Court. If the said FIR could have been actually there, the name of the petitioner ought to have been in the list of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as aforesaid. 7. Further case of the respondents is that the Bank is entitled to get about a sum of Rs. 95.00 lacs approximately and further interest till realisation of the said amount but the petitioner by taking advantage of the interim order of this Court had already removed the valuable articles and goods under hopothecation and the bank is going to get nothing out of its dues from the petitioner which money is admittedly a public money. 8. Reply to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner but this part of the statement made in Paragraph 31 has not been denied by the petitioner. Its only stand is that it did not get any grant for rehabilitation earlier and the Bank is bound to obey the direction of this Court as well as the guidelines of the RBI. Its only stand is that it did not get any grant for rehabilitation earlier and the Bank is bound to obey the direction of this Court as well as the guidelines of the RBI. 9. Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly submits that the respondents are bound to comply with the order dated 16.7.1991/2.8.1991 passed in CWJC No. 1283/91(R) by which this Court directed that in view of the direction of the RBI, all Banks including the Union Bank of India should provide finance to make the unit of the petitioner viable one. Second contention is that the company being a riot victim of 1984, it is entitled to get compensation as per the direction of the Supreme Court dated 7th November, 1989 passed in several writ applications. 10. Mr. Pralay Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that the present writ application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the facts before this Court both in earlier writ applications as well as in the present one. The facts that the petitioner was earlier granted financial help for rehabilitation has not been denied by the petitioner. This fact, it would have brought to the notice of this Court when the petitioner filed the earlier writ application or if the respondents would have been noticed by this Court to place their case, the order dated 16.7.1991/2.8.1991 probably would not have been passed. Advancing his argument Mr. Sinha submits that the guidelines of the Supreme Court dated 6th February, 1987 as contained in Annexure-8 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as this letter was subsequently clarified/modified in the case of the petitioner by the RBI. This letter is dated 7.1.1992. Moreover, the petitioner had already availed the benefit of first rehabilitation. It is urged that inspite of several financial irregularities and indiscipline, the respondents Bank, in order to revive the unit went on granting loan to the petitioner subject to certain terms and conditions but unfortunately the petitioner, in order to defraud the Bank, not only did not submit the accounts but also removed the valuable property from out-side the State. Lastly Mr. Lastly Mr. Sinha contends that the petitioner has no statutory right whatsoever to get financial help from the Bank and as such it is not entitled to get any relief under writ jurisdiction of this Court. Referring to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 6.5.1992 in Case No. 12 Rule 15 of 1991-92 (Annexure-D to the supplementary affidavit) Mr. Sinha contends that the claim of the Managing Director of the petitioner that he was one of the victim of riot has been held to be false. The Managing Director admitted before the Deputy Commissioner that his name was not there in the list of riot victims. Mr. Sinha with reference to several documents annexed to the supplementary counter-affidavit/reply filed on 4.8.1994 submits that the Department of Industries Technical Education (Industries) has already adopted a resolution on 29th September, 1993 for incentive to be given to the Small Scale Industries in the State of Bihar. Secondly, the State Government has also issued a resolution on the same date with regard to incentives to the sick and closed industries for their rehabilitation. It is urged that the rehabilitation unless suggested cannot be given by a particular bank rather it is the State Government and other authorities like Industries Department, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Bihar State Electricity Board and Small Industries Development Bank etc. to form a committee and to decide the matter. 11. On the back drop of aforesaid contentions of the parties, the questions to be decided in this case are: (i) As to whether the petitioner is entitled to get financial help for rehabilitation in view of the order passed by this Court earlier; (ii) Whether the petitioner-company is a riot victim of 1984 riot and is entitled to be compensated in view of the observation of the Apex Court; and (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to get any relief from this Court. 12. In order to answer the first question, let me consider the order dated 16.7.1991 which was subsequently modified on 2.8.1991 in CWJC No. 1283/91(R). It is admitted that the petitioner made the similar prayer earlier before this Court for a direction to grant financial assistance for rehabilitation. The order dated 16.7.1991 is Annexure-1. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that when the said order was passed the respondents were not noticed. It is admitted that the petitioner made the similar prayer earlier before this Court for a direction to grant financial assistance for rehabilitation. The order dated 16.7.1991 is Annexure-1. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that when the said order was passed the respondents were not noticed. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said application in view of the direction of the Industrial Development Bank of India to the Union Bank of India (respondent No. 1) to provide fund to meet the unit of the petitioner which is now sick unit, into a viable one. The petitioner was directed to approach Industrial Development Bank for relief. This order was modified on 2.8.1991 which reads as follows: It appears that there has been innumerable typing mistake due to inadvertance in order dated 16.7.1991. The order recorded on that date shall be read as follows: In view of the direction of the Reserve Bank of India to all Banks including Union Bank of India, which had given loan to the petitioner earlier, that they should provide fund to make the unit of the petitioner, which is sick, into a viable one. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order was not complied with by the respondents-Bank. In my view the grievance of the petitioner is not genuine inasmuch as the petitioner suppressed the fact before the Bench earlier that the respondent-Bank extended rehabilitation facilities and those were availed by the petitioner-company. The specific stand of the respondents-Bank is that even though various irregularities were committed by the company in order to save its existence, the Bank out of its own accord extended loans repeatedly and requested the petitioner to maintain financial discipline by complying the terms and conditions of such loan. When this request was not honoured the Bank had to write several letters to the Chairman of the Bihar Sick Industries Association, Jamshedpur. First letter is dated 28th August, 1989 (Annexure-A), which speaks for itself. The Bank informed the Chairman that while the petitioner-company was enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank it came to light in 1982 that Managing Director, Nihal Singh had withdrawn the amount over Rs. 40.00 lacs from the business and utilised the same for other than working capital requirements namely, for acquiring immovable property. The Bank informed the Chairman that while the petitioner-company was enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank it came to light in 1982 that Managing Director, Nihal Singh had withdrawn the amount over Rs. 40.00 lacs from the business and utilised the same for other than working capital requirements namely, for acquiring immovable property. The Bank could have gone for legal remedy at that time but lenient view was taken and the company was permitted to carry on its normal activities and to repay Banks liability in instalments on the basis of working results submitted by the company. This letter clearly indicates that the attitude of the company was to take loan from the Bank without intention to repay the same. The Managing Director of the company, in my opinion, wanted to get himself enriched by such conduct. Annexure-B is the letter dated 9th September, 1989 also to the same effect. The last Paragraph of the said letter is relevant, which reads as follows: The aforesaid deliberate and continued non-adherence of the financial discipline led the Company to a point of no return making it non-viable. When the Bank put pressure on the Company to liquidate the huge outstandings of around 64.00 lacs, Shri Nihal Singh, Managing Director of the Company personally called on our Managing Director at the Central Office in July, 1988 and assured him to produce documentary evidence of firm orders and also agreed to dispose of his landed property in Orissa, and deposit the sale proceeds of at least Rs. 8.00 lacs to Rs. 10.00 lacs towards liquidation of the old outstanding within two months. While the Bank deferred the legal proceedings on the basis of the said assurance of the Managing Director of the Company, the Company cooly approached the Honourable Supreme Court and obtained a stay order against any legal action for recovering the Bank dues. 14. All these facts were suppressed by the petitioner from this Court and got a favourable order in the earlier writ application. Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot make any grievance in this application that the said order was not complied with. Secondly if actually the orders as contained in Annexures-1 and I/A were not complied with, the petitioner would have pressed its contempt application which was filed long ago. Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot make any grievance in this application that the said order was not complied with. Secondly if actually the orders as contained in Annexures-1 and I/A were not complied with, the petitioner would have pressed its contempt application which was filed long ago. Non-pursuing of the contempt application, in my view, suggests that the petitioner was apprehensive that cat would be out of bag when the respondents-Bank would be asked to file show cause in the said contempt application. The petitioner further in this writ application also has suppressed the fact that earlier financial help was extended to it for rehabilitation. However, an evasive reply has been given by the petitioner in its reply to the counter-affidavit by stating that no rehabilitation facility was granted and utilised by the petitioner. This statement goes contrary to the documents filed by the Bank. 15. In this connection, the guidelines of the RBI dated 6th February, 1987 (Annexure-8) may be looked into. This was addressed to all Schedule Commercial Banks regarding rehabilitation of Sick Small Scale Industrial Unit. One of the guidelines is regarding viability of S.S.I. Units. It contemplates that a unit may be regarded as potentially viable if it would be in a position, after implementing a relief package spread over period not exceeding 5 years from the commencement of the package from Banks, Financial Institutions, Government (Central/State) and other concerned agencies, as may be necessary, continue to service its repayment obligations as agreed upon including those forming part of the package, without the help of the concessions after the aforesaid period. The repayment period for restructured (past) debt should not exceed 7 years from the date of implementation of the package. This guidelines was subsequently modified by the RBI by its letter dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure-C). This letter is in connection with the petitioner-company which, inter alia, says as follows: These guidelines do not as such give any right to any body to get any specific concession. This guidelines was subsequently modified by the RBI by its letter dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure-C). This letter is in connection with the petitioner-company which, inter alia, says as follows: These guidelines do not as such give any right to any body to get any specific concession. As to whether the complainant is entitled to any of the concessions mentioned in the guidelines issued by RBI is to be determined by the Financing Bank and the commercial decision taken by the bank will not be substituted by RBI or any other authority with its own decision, as the responsibility of following up the advances and recovering them is vested with the financing bank. 16. Another aspect of the matter to be noticed that by resolution dated 29th September, 1975 the Department of Industries and Technical Education issued a resolution regarding incentive to sick and closed industries for their rehabilitation. It further appears that the Bank, in pursuance of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 1283/91 (R), again considered the case of the petitioners unit for rehabilitation and by its letter dated 26.9.1991 (Annexure-G) the decision of the Bank was communicated to the Joint Chief Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay with a copy to the petitioner and other respondents. From this letter, it appears that having detailed the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner-company, the respondents-Bank requested the RBI to enlighten it as to what directions have been given by RBI for nursing this unit as per the High Courts order to enable them to decide on the future course of action. The request of the respondent-Bank was under consideration before the competent authority of RBI and by this letter dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure-J), the Assistant Chief Officer, RBI informed the respondents, inter alia, that detailed guidelines with regard to rehabilitation of the sick unit in small scale sector have already been issued to all scheduled Commercial Banks and these guidelines do not as such give any right to anybody to get any specific concession. As to whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the concessions mentioned in the guidelines issued by the RBI is to be determined by the financing bank and the commercial decision taken by the Bank will not be substituted by RBI or any other authority with its own decision as the responsibility of following up the advances and recovering them is vested with the financing Bank. This letter of the RBI will further strengthen the argument of Mr. Sinha that the guidelines of the RBI dated 6th February, 1987 are not required to be followed blindly. The subsequent letter of RBI in respect of this particular unit, in my opinion, indicates that the guidelines of 1987 is a general one and has to be applied taking into consideration facts and circumstances of a particular unit. The RBI has not given a blank cheque to the petitioner-company to get benefit of rehabilitation scheme in any circumstances. 17. Almost in similar circumstances in the case of Neel Kamal Engineering V/s. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 3274 of 1992 (R) a Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect of the matter. In that case the petitioner approached this Court as its proposal for rehabilitation was turned down by the Bihar State Finance Corporation on the ground that the loan first advance was in the year 1975 i.e. 16 years ago and any advance that may now be made will not be recoverable within 20 years from the date of first advance in accordance with the policy guidelines of the Corporation. This Court took into consideration of the fact that the original loan was advanced to the petitioner in the year 1975 and some amount was still outstanding in that account and the total liability in this account comes to Rs. 40.00 lacs and under these circumstances, by an order dated 22.2.1993, the Bench held as follows:- In these circumstances we dispose of this writ application with an observation that if the petitioner fully pays the amount that may be due in the first account, and approaches the Bihar State Finance Corpn. with a rehabilitation scheme it may consider its proposal in accordance with the relevant guidelines. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merit of the petitioners claim. with a rehabilitation scheme it may consider its proposal in accordance with the relevant guidelines. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merit of the petitioners claim. In the light of the aforesaid observation and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 18 The second question formulated is also to be answered against the petitioner for the reasons that the Supreme Court by its order dated 7th November, 1989 (Annexure-2), on the basis of the statements made by the learned Attorney General, has merely directed the Banks not to have recourse to recovery proceedings until the banks decide the cane of each individual concerned in accordance with the advise of the RBI. The Supreme Court was specific in observing that this order does not concern those persons who are not victims of the above aforesaid riots. The order to stay of recovery made by us relates only to the aforesaid category of persons. This does not prevent any bank from instituting a suit in Court if it is felt that the suit is about to be barred by time. Even if any such suit is filed it shall be kept pending until the relief to be. granted is determined by the banks as per the advice of the Reserve Bank of India. 19. The case of the petitioner is that the company was damaged by ante social elements during the riot, as a result of which the company sufferred loss to the tune of Rs. 17.00 lacs. A copy of the FIR and letter of the Chairman of the Minority Commission have been annexed to substantiate its claim. 20. Annexure-4, on the other hand, appears to be an information to the police regarding the incident that took place. Annexure-4 does not show that the company sufferred the loss to the tune of Rs. 17.00 lacs as alleged in the petition. Annexure-4/A dated 19.11.1991 is by one Jabir Hussain, the Working Chairman of the Minority Commissioner, in which he has informed the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner-company sufferred some loss and its name was entered in a list given by the Chief Secretary of Shri Guru Singh Sabha. 17.00 lacs as alleged in the petition. Annexure-4/A dated 19.11.1991 is by one Jabir Hussain, the Working Chairman of the Minority Commissioner, in which he has informed the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner-company sufferred some loss and its name was entered in a list given by the Chief Secretary of Shri Guru Singh Sabha. However, the District Administration did not issue any certificate to that effect to the petitioner-company and as such, request was made to issue a certificate to the petitioner to show that it was a victim of the aforesaid riot. On the other hand, from the order dated 6.5.1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-D, it appears that after recording evidences, the Deputy Commissioner has come to a finding that the petitioner could not establish the fact that if was one of the riot victims. 21. In view of this disputed claims of the parties, the writ court will not go into the disputed questions of fact to decide as to whether the petitioner was riot victim or not. In my opinion, the respondent-Bank, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, has considered the matter afresh and informed the RBI about the facts and circumstances of the case. The responsibility of following of the advances and recovering loan from the borrowers is undoubtedly vested with the financing Bank, who is the respondent-Bank in this particular case. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, if the Bank after consideration the pross and eron of the facts has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not only availed the first rehabilitation scheme but did not observe the financial discipline and also in order to avoid payment of loan amount was trying to dispose of the property, this Court will not exercise its discretionery power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. The decision in the case of P.C.B. House V/s. United Commercial Bank and Ors. reported in 1987 BLJR 117 relied on behalf of the petitioner, in my opinion, is easily distinguishable. In that case it was held that the petitioner was found to be thoroughly incompetent to run the business and it was impossible for him to repay the loans, and the problems and difficulties of the petitioner have arisen on account of his mis-management and incompetence. In that case it was held that the petitioner was found to be thoroughly incompetent to run the business and it was impossible for him to repay the loans, and the problems and difficulties of the petitioner have arisen on account of his mis-management and incompetence. This Court taking into consideration the guidelines of the RBI directed the respondent-Bank to implement the recommendation of the Committee. On the other hand, in the instant case, I have already noticed that the petitioner taking advantage of the guidelines of the RBI as well as the observation of the Supreme Court moved this Court earlier by suppressing the material facts that in order to revive its company the respondent-Bank had already extended financial help for rehabilitation and it was availed by it. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court in the present writ application and question No. 3 is thus answered against the petitioner. 23. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 10.2.1992 is vacated. The respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed for recovery of the loan amount in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.