Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed primarily for the purpose of getting of out of the liability incurred by the petitioner on the basis of the agreement entered into between the petitioner-company and the Bihar State Electricity Board. The said agreement was entered into for the purpose of liquidating the dues of the petitioner-company to the extent of Rs. 51,57,152.65 (Rupees Fifty one Lac fifty seven thousand one hundred fifty two and paise sixty five) only in twenty monthly instalments. The said instalments were granted by the Board for liquidating the aforesaid dues. 3. In this connection, it may be mentioned that it is said that the petitioner- company previously approached the Chairman of the Board for re-connection of its dedicated power line and also to grant easy instalments of its dues. From Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit it appears that the petitioner was demanding 30 instalments to liquidate its dues while the Board agreed to give 12 instalments. 4. Ultimately, there was negotiation between the parties and the aforesaid agreement dated 26.4.99 (Annexure-2) was entered into in which the Board granted 20 instalments to the petitioner company to clear all its dues. 5. Having entered into the said agreement which is purely commercial in nature, this writ petition has been filed before this Court with a prayer to revise the instalments of dues as indicated by the Respondents as contained in Annexure-2. 6. The position in law is well settled that when an agreement is entered into between the parties and such agreement is commercial in nature and entered into for the purpose of liquidating the dues o! one of the parties, then it is very difficult for Writ Court to alter the terms of such agreement. This is purely a dispute of monetary transaction of a commercial nature. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has referred to the proceeding of the B.I.F.R. and also Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Devy Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa and others reported in (1997)6 Supreme Court 669 This Court finds that the B.I.F.R. proceed ing was dated 28.1.99 and the agreement was voluntarily entered into by the petitioner at a much later date on 26.4.99. So, the agreement is independent of the so called proceeding and can not be governed by the proceeding. So, the agreement is independent of the so called proceeding and can not be governed by the proceeding. Apart from that the said Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Devy Ltd (supra), was given in a completely different fact situation. In that Judgment the provision ol Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Centra1 Act") came up for consideration and the Supreme Court construing the words "any other law" occurring in S.22 (1) of the Central Act held that the said expression would also cover even laws made under the State List. 8. This Court, therefore, does not find any relevance of the decision in Tata Devy Ltd (supra) to the present case. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the instant case and revise the agreement of a commercial nature entered into between the parties. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is dismissed. No costs. 10. Interim order, if any, is vacated.