Admitted facts of this case are that from respondent No. l Corporation, Smt Sumitri Devi widow of Late Shri Amar Nath Gupta availed loan to the extent of Rs.3,84,130/- as far back as in the year 1990.This was for establishing a printing press which he did in the name and style of M/s Amar Printers., This loan was repayable in instalments as per loan documents together with agreed interest and other moneys as agreed to between the parties. Admittedly after raising of the loan, repayment schedule for the same was not adhered to and since 1990 respondent is in arrears of entire amount that was availed out of the total sanctioned loan of Rs.4.67 lacs. It is more than 10 1/2 years ago i.e. on 01-03-1990 when the loan was availed by the loanee which was duly guaranteed by the petitioner. Another salient feature of this case is that deceased loanee was the mother of petitioner. Thus he has two characters, one as a guarantor and the other as a legal representative of deceased loanee being her son. When the amount was not forthcoming, respondent-corporation issued notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. This is dated 28-09-1998. It was duly acknowledged by the petitioner vide his reply dated 27-10-1998 (Annexure "B" with the writ petition). Since petitioner did not pay anything towards the outstanding dues of respondent No. l - Corporation, which had accumulated to the extent of Rs. 13,33,359/- as on 15-09-1998, and despite having been called upon to do the needful, Unit was taken over under section 29 of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter a tender notice was issued in the Daily Excelsior on 30th August 99, wherein details of the Unit i.e. Amar Printers of Late Smt. Sumitri Devi was also put to tender. It finds mention at serial number 10 in the tender notice, copy whereof is placed on the file as Annexure "C". Case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent - Corporation has formulated Special Rehabilitation-cum- Settlement Scheme for liquidation of loan by the promoters of the Units set up prior to 01-04-1988. After issuance of Annexure "C", present writ petition was filed. When it came up for consideration on 10.09.1999 status-quo to the extent of petitioner in the writ petition was ordered to be maintained. Respondents have filed their objections. After issuance of Annexure "C", present writ petition was filed. When it came up for consideration on 10.09.1999 status-quo to the extent of petitioner in the writ petition was ordered to be maintained. Respondents have filed their objections. According to them the entire loan in question has remained unpaid. Even though offer was made by the petitioner vide Annexure "B" in the month of October 98, despite that he has not cared to deposit anything as well as to fulfill other requirements of the scheme as alleged by the petitioner in his communication. At the time of hearing of this case, Shri Parag Sharma submitted that his client is ready and willing to settle the matter with the Financial Corporation in terms of the aforesaid Special Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Scheme. This position was controverted by Shri Raju, who urged that petitioners case is not covered by the Scheme as the Unit in question had been set up after 01 -04-1988. He in the alternative urged that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument without being concdd that the said Special Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Scheme is applicable, still the fact remains that petitioner has even till today not shown the face of coin to the Corporation, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. Corporation is established with a view to provide financial assistance to the intending entrepreneur for the industrial growth as well as for generating employment to the labour and revenues to the State. After availing financial assistance from respondent No. 1-Corporation if the money is not repaid as per schedule and or as per revised repayment schedule, its direct consequence is that the industrial growth and health of the State is adversely hit. As already observed out of the sanctioned loan what was availed by the loanee, not even a single penny has been repaid during the last more than 10 years. Thus the amount has remained blocked. As already observed out of the sanctioned loan what was availed by the loanee, not even a single penny has been repaid during the last more than 10 years. Thus the amount has remained blocked. In case there were circumstances beyond control of the loanee which were compelling, those could be brought to the notice of Financial Corporation, and as a commercial organisation working on sound business principles it would have positively considered the matter relating to rescheduling of the repayment schedule, besides having allowed other benefits as may be admissible in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, Regulations as well as any such Scheme like Special Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Scheme if applicable to the case of loanee. No such exercise had been undertaken by the petitioner. Though vide Annexure "B" petitioner had undertaken to pay the loan availed by the loanee being her only son, but it remained a paper proposal as he did not sheel out even a single penny. In view of the aforesaid legal position as well as admitted facts of this case, petitioner is into entitled to any relief whatsoever in this writ petition. Besides this, case of the petitioner is not covered by Special Rehabilitaion -cum-settlement Scheme as the Unit was established after 01-04-1988. Alternatively it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have placed on record of the respondent -Corporation audit balance sheet etc. so that on the principles underlying the said scheme some admissible relief could be given to the petitioner. What seems to be the endeavour of the petitioner is not to repay the amount and at the same time not to permit respondent-Corporation to exercise it statutory right under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and thus keep the amount of financial assistance blocked thereby allowing the interest and other moneys piling up day in and day out. This cannot be permitted either in law equity or otherwise. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Exparte interim order dated 10-09-1999 shall stand vacated forthwith. This cannot be permitted either in law equity or otherwise. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Exparte interim order dated 10-09-1999 shall stand vacated forthwith. When confronted with the peculiar facts of the case of petitioner as discussed hereinabove, Shri Parag Sharma submitted that his client is ready and willing to deposit part of the principal amount and would approach respondent No.l -Corporation with a proposal to grant him relief by waiving penal, compound and additional interest. According to him petitioner is genuinely interested in repaying the amount and settling the claim of respondent no. 1. Despite dismissal of this writ petition, in case petitioner deposits a sum of rupees one lac on or before 31st October,2000 either in cash or by bankers cheque/demand draft payable to respondent No. 1 and by no other mode and also submits a proposal for rescheduling the repayment schedule of the loan and interest, with a further prayer to waive penal, compound as well as additional interest, respondent no. 1 - Corporation will be free to examine and decide the case of petitioner by granting him such admissible relief to which he may be found entitled to in the circumstances of this case. While tendering the aforesaid sum of Rupees One Lac, petitioner shall be duty bound to submit duly audited balance sheet and other documentary proof so as to establish that the Unit sustained constant cash losses or inadequate cash generation or its net worth was eroded to the extent of 50% or more on account of accumulated cash losses. In case he fails to do the needful on or before 31st October, 2000, as aforesaid, respondent - Corporation shall be at liberty to exercise its statutory rights under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and take such further action as it may deem fit and proper for recovery of its outstanding dues in accordance with law.