JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - Counsel for the parties state that instead of deciding the application for vacation of stay, the writ petition itself may be decided on merits. In view of this, the writ petition is taken on board for final disposal. 2. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner-company applied for loan of Rs. 18,70,000/- and a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- was sanctioned on 25.5.1985 which was to be repaid in 14 half yearly instalments. According to the petitioner, it availed of only a sum of Rs. 12,12,000/- and decided to surrender the balance amount of Rs. 5,28,000/-. It is alleged that in fact, it surrendered unavailed amount of Rs. 5,28,000/-. Further according to the petitioner, it remained under bona fide behalf that because of surrendering of unavailed amount, 14 half-yearly instalments payable would be reduced proportionately but the respondent-Corporation without proportionately reducing the instalments, called upon the petitioner to pay the instalments as provided under the agreement. It also threatened that in case of default, it would take over the industrial unit of the petitioner company. In the writ petition, the only prayer is that the respondent-Corporation may be directed to reschedule repayment of loan availed of by it. Upon notice of the writ petition, detailed written statement has been filed by the respondent-Corporation. 3. The case of respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner Company was asked from time to time to clear the amount but no steps were taken by it to pay the instalments. It is stated that at the time of filing of the written statement, after adjusting the amount already re-paid, approximately a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- was outstanding. Written statement was filed on 4.3.1991 and according to the counsel for the respondent-Corporation, the amount now payable comes to about Rs. 77,00,000/-. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record. 5. As noticed earlier, the only prayer made in the writ petition is to direct the respondent-Corporation to reschedule repayment of loan by the petitioner company. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company made an application on 8.11.1990 (Annexure P-6) to the Managing Director, Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh requesting for recasting of the loan instalments as per loan availed of by the petitioner. Mr. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company made an application on 8.11.1990 (Annexure P-6) to the Managing Director, Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh requesting for recasting of the loan instalments as per loan availed of by the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner company stated that vide application dated 30.3.2000 (Annexure P-7), a request has also been made to the Corporation for one time settlement. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the representation made by the petitioner company on 8.11.1990 is still pending consideration with the respondent-Corporation. The present petition is sending since 1990 and in my view, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent-Corporation in case it is directed to consider the case of the petitioner company for rescheduling of the loan or for one time settlement in accordance with the Scheme/Policy of the respondent-Corporation, if any, in vogue. 7. Accordingly, respondent-Corporation is directed to take a final decision on representations dated 8.11.1990 and 30.3.2000, Annexure P-6 and P-7 respectively in regard to the rescheduling of the loan or one time settlament of the account of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from today and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the loan or one time settlement of the account of the petitioner company. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of order be given Dasti on payment. Order accordingly.