Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner in this application seeks quashing of the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 7/86-87 pending in the court of Certificate Officer, Bhojpur. The aforementioned certificate case was filed at the instance of the Central Bank of India for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,581.11 which, according to the bank, accrued by way of interest on the cash credit facility given to the petitioner by the bank. 2. The petitioner is a war widow ; her husband, Col. Kapil Bharadwaja, was admittedly killed in action. The widowed wife was given certain loans by the bank under a scheme of financial assistance for rehabilitating disabled members of the defence services/border security forces and widows/dependents of those killed in action (copy of the scheme is at annexure 1). Under this scheme financial assistance was to be provided for establishing supply outlet for cooking gas, etc. The scheme, under the marginal heading "Nature of advance" provided as follows : "Credit facilities for working capital requirements will be given by way of cash credit limit and shall be utilised for financing purchase of stocks-in-trade, i.e., petrol, diesel, kerosene, lubricants, gas in LPG cylinders, etc. Advances for financing purchase of equipment, transport vehicles and for acquiring of godowns, transport vehicles and for acquiring of godowns and showrooms shall be considered as medium term loan. Wherever requests for advances against book debts are received, the same should be referred to the zonal manager/central office for consideration." 3. Then under the marginal heading "Rate of interest" it was stated as follows : "No interest will be charged on the advances made under this scheme. This will be free of interest." 4. Following it was the provision relating to repayment in the following terms : "In case of medium terms loans, the period of repayment will not exceed three years. Repayment would be in monthly/quarterly instalments, as per the convenience of the borrower, the first such instalment to start after six months from the initial disbursement of the loan. Wherever possible, the term loan may be collected in a shorter period, in consultation with ICCs local District Manager." A 5 In terms of the aforesaid scheme the petitioner was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 10,000 vide letter dated May 3, 1973 (copy at annexure 2) in the following manner : Rs. 8,000 against construction of godown ; Rs. Wherever possible, the term loan may be collected in a shorter period, in consultation with ICCs local District Manager." A 5 In terms of the aforesaid scheme the petitioner was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 10,000 vide letter dated May 3, 1973 (copy at annexure 2) in the following manner : Rs. 8,000 against construction of godown ; Rs. 1,000 against rickshaws, etc. ; Rs. 1,000 against furniture. She was further given the facility of a cash credit account in the following manner : Cash credit : (open loan) limit of Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand only) against hypothecation of burners, rubber tubes and LPG cylinders. The maximum advances against the above materials should not exceed as under : Rs. 18,000 against burners ; Rs. 2,000 against rubber tubes ; Rs. 5,000 against cost of gas (LPG) one truck load. The petitioner admittedly repaid the term loan within the stipulated period. However, she went on using the cash credit facility even after the repayment of the term loan and beyond the period of three years fixed for the repayment of the term loan. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the bank the cash credit facility was given to the petitioner for a period of three years only and as she continued to use the facility beyond this period, she was liable to pay interest from the date of the first disbursement, i.e., from January, 1977, onwards. According to the counter-affidavit the account was in debit balance at the time of the filing of the counter-affidavit on July 21, 1990. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner on January 25, 1978, gave an undertaking as required under the Act that the amount standing in the cash credit account shall be recoverable through the process under the Act. No document or undertaking said to have been given by the petitioner has been brought on the record in support of this statement. 6 Having heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. No document or undertaking said to have been given by the petitioner has been brought on the record in support of this statement. 6 Having heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha on behalf of the respondent-bank, I find that neither in the scheme (annexure 1) nor in the sanction order (annexure 2) was there any stipulation that the cash credit facility would be available to the petitioner only for a period of three years from the date of the first disbursement and in case she used the facility beyond that period she would be liable to pay interest on the debit balance from the date of the first disbursement itself. As noted above, in the case of term loan it was specifically stipulated that it must be repaid within a period of three years. As regards the cash credit facility, there was no such stipulation. Moreover, it was specifically stated in the scheme that no interest will be charged on the advances made under this scheme. It is needless to say that the advances under the cash credit facility too were all made to the petitioner under that scheme and hence by virtue of the provisions making the advances interest free, the advances in the form of cash credit must also be held to be interest free. 7. After the expiry of the three-year period, it was open to the bank to make it clear to the petitioner that they would either discontinue the facility to her or she must pay interest on the debit balance in her cash credit account but it does not appear that any such step was taken by the bank. In the absence of any provision in the scheme or any stipulation in the sanction order and in the absence of this liability having been clearly explained to the petitioner even after the expiry of the three-year period, I am unable to sustain the action of the bank for the recovery of the interest said to have been accrued in the cash credit account of the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, I find that this writ petition is fit to, be allowed. I, accordingly, quash the proceedings including the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, in Certificate Case No. 7/86-87 pending in the court of the Certificate Officer, Bhojpur.