JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner-unit is registered as a small scale industry and is engaged in manufacturing Auto Head Lamps, Reflectors, Mirrors and Vacuum quoted items. It obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the year 1978 from the respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation), but failed to repay the same and thus the loan dues accumulated to Rs. 4.97 lakhs. However, a fresh loan of Rs. 5.50 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner- unit for its rehabilitation on concessional rate, out of which Rs. 4.97 lakhs were disbursed. The petitioner unit approached the Corporation for further loan against subsidy and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was sanctioned in the year 1988 as ad interim assistance to the unit. 2. In the year 1991, an application was made to the Managing Director of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority for registration of the petitioner unit as sick industry. Managing Director of the said Authority forwarded the same to the Director of Industries, Bihar. In the meantime, the Corporation issued notice dated 31.10.1990 to the petitioner unit for payment of the term loan, on which the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure 6) on 24.3.1991 before the Senior Branch Manager of the Corporation at Adityapur, respondent No. 2 for rehabilitation of the unit. At that time, the instalment amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month was being deposited. On 12.3.1992, the Corporation published advertisement in Patna Newspaper New Bharat Times inviting tenders for auction sale of the petitioner-unit along with other Companies. 3. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 992 of 1992 (R) which was permitted to be withdrawn on 13.5.1992 (Annexure 7) to approach the Senior Branch Manager of the Corporation. The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 604 of 1993 (R) for rehabilitation of the unit according to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, which was disposed of on 11.2.1993 (Annexure 8) with a direction that if no step has been taken by now pursuant to the earlier direction of the Court dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure 7), then Corporation was directed to proceed with rehabilitation of the petitioner-unit, according to the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (Annexure 11) and the Corporation (Annexure 10). 4. 4. On 27.9.1993 the Managing Director of the Corporation passed orders (Annexure 14) on the rehabilitation proposal and rejected the same on the ground that the loan was first disbursed to the petitioner-unit in the year 1978, and thereafter twice re-schedulement of dues have already taken place. The Circular of the Industrial Development Bank of India dated 9.10.1989 envisaged that total outstanding dues should be repaid within a span of twenty years from the date of first disbursement. The petitioners claim of increase of turnover per annum was unrealistic and unsustainable. The Managing Director also observed that even if the alleged increase in turnover is taken to be expected accruals it would not be sufficient to liquidate the Corporations dues in the remaining period of five years to bring within the span of twenty years under the guidelines of the Industrial Development Bank of India. Hence, the rehabilitation proposal of the petitioner-unit was unacceptable as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. 5. The petitioners Counsel contended that the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (Annexure 11) as well as the Circular of the Corporation (Annexure 10) were not considered before passing the order contained in Memo No. 4995 dated 19.10.1993 (Annexure 14). The petitioner-unit was showing rapid increase in its production day-by-day and was also making payments to the Corporation. However, once the industry became sick, the penal interest was required to be waived and once rehabilitation scheme was provided. The petitioner-unit was to be given the benefits prescribed. 6. In reply to the petitioners affidavit, the Corporation produced the details of total outstanding dues on the aforesaid three accounts of the petitioner-unit as on 22.8.2002, which comes to Rs. 38 lakhs and odd. It is apparent from the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (Annexure 11) that total outstanding dues must be paid within a span of 20 years from the date of first disbursement of the loan, which in the present case expired on 27th September, 1978 and as such re-schedulement, if any, thereafter would have been in violation of the said guidelines. 7. After the Managing Director passed the aforesaid order dated 27.9.1993 and refused to accept the proposal of the rehabilitation of the petitioner unit, on 27.2.1994 in the daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar published from Jamshedpur a notice was published for auction sale of the petitioner-unit to be held on 16.3.1994. 7. After the Managing Director passed the aforesaid order dated 27.9.1993 and refused to accept the proposal of the rehabilitation of the petitioner unit, on 27.2.1994 in the daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar published from Jamshedpur a notice was published for auction sale of the petitioner-unit to be held on 16.3.1994. Again on 3.7.1995 the Corporation published tender notice for sale of mortgaged assets of its assisted units under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 including the petitioner unit at Sl. No. 41 in Hindustan Times an English daily published from Patna which was to be opened in the Corporation Head Office on 17.7.1995. 8. While admitting the present Writ Application on 17.7.1995 this Court stayed the auction sale of the petitioner unit on the condition to deposit Rs. 1,00,000.00 within six weeks. 9. It appears that the first re-schedulement of the petitioner-unit was done on 15.3.1982 and the second re-schedulement was done on 5.12.1986 and respective agreements therefor were entered into. The Corporation had nothing to do regarding non-sanctioning of the working capital to the petitioner-unit by the Bank and/or the Electricity Board. 10. It was for the Corporation to decide whether the petitioner unit was potentially viable or not. The petitioner- unit was not considered to be potentially viable and, therefore, the proposal for rehabilitation for the third time was not acceptable. 11. No doubt the units which were given rehabilitation package in the past may be considered for additional rehabilitation package if it was found that the earlier given package was inadequate, but only those units against whom the balance outstanding was less than or equal to the double of the earlier disbursed loan are normally considered for further rehabilitation. The Managing Director in the present case after examining all the pros and cons based on the prescribed guidelines relating rehabilitation found that re-habilitation proposal of the petitioner unit was not acceptable. 12. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure 14). This writ application is dismissed.