Judgment 1. The order impugned is dated 2 August, 1995 on C.W.J.C. No. 9966/94, Mohamad Manzoor Alam V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. Simply on the writ petition the learned Judge declined to grant any ralief as recorded in the order itself, the petitioner had come to the High Court on two occasions. Those two writ petitions were disposed of with certain observans. C.W.J.C. No. 9966/94 was the third writ petition. 3. A perusal of the order which has been challenged does not reflect on what exactly the issues are. Thus, it is best to reproduce the order which is below : "Heard the parties. It appears that for the same very relief, the petitioner moved this Court earlier on two occasions and this Court disposed of the writ applications with certain observations. In my view, in view of the aforesaid orders passed in the writ applications, it is not possible to grant any further relief to the petitioner in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 4. Only when the Court went through the entire record of the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal it became conscious of the fact that the petitioner is a defaulter, He took a loan from the State Bank of India against a cash credit account. At the time when the counter-affidavit to the writ petition was filed on 21 December, 1994 a sum of Rs. 4.87 lac and odd was outstanding against the petitioner- appellant including the court fees as a certificate action proceeding was initiated to realise this debt as a public debt. 5. The petitioner-appellant engineered an exercise on how not to pay the loan. He resorted on legal engineering. Firstly, he told the Bank that he will not return the loan and if the Bank was desirous it may recover the amount as a certificate action under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. One thing was quite clear on the record that the petitioner had no intention in discharging his debt to the Bank but was readily utilising the cash credit facilities. This game cannot go on ad infinitum because the Bank had lent money to pay on the faith that it would be returned. But the petitioner did not return it. Equity now was against the petitioner. 6. This game cannot go on ad infinitum because the Bank had lent money to pay on the faith that it would be returned. But the petitioner did not return it. Equity now was against the petitioner. 6. Having recorded an undertaking that the loan could be also recovered under a certificate action the petitioner now started making legal submissions, to the effect, that the certificate action was itself bad, The Bank was now faced with a situation that petitioner-appellant would neither pay and yet would resort to the law courts to challenge the certificate action. 7. All that it needs is several persons like petitioner-appellant to collapse the economy of the nation. Such bad debts, if not paid contribute to the deficit financing of the nations planned economy. However, persons who have nothing to do with these loans get lined up unconsciously for making up these bad debts by paying taxes, direct or indirect. 8. The petitioner-appellant has violated every conceivable rules of mitigation of damages and desires that the High Court should come out with a relief in its prerogative writ jurisdiction to go into the legalities of how the petitioner may avoid payment of the loan. This the High Court is not about to do. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court rests, firstly on equity, justice and good conscience. Technicalities to defeat the law is itself antiequity. 9. This appeal is dismissed with costs.