( 1 ) THE petitioner dealer is challenging a letter dated 15. 11. 2002, Annexure F, an endorsement dated 16. 12. 2002 and an endorsement dated 13. 1. 2003 (Annexures G and H) in this petition. The petitioner is also seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 19. 2. 2003, Annexure J issued by the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner dealer filed an application in terms of Kara Samadhana Act for the assessment year 1997-98 by paying tax liability of Rs. 3,46,365/- by way of a cheque and a sum of Rs. 68,524/- by way of penalty amount u/s. 7 (2) of the Act. The order is filed at Annexure A. The petitioners application was rejected in terms of Annexure B. An assessment order was passed for the assessment year 1997-98. A penalty order was also passed in terms of Annexures C and D. The petitioner with a view to get the penalty waived, filed one more application dated 15. 6. 2001 in terms of Kara Samadhana Scheme. The application is at Annexure E. The same was rejected in terms of Annexure F. Annexure G is an endorsement in the matter of rejection of the application. Annexure H is a letter directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax. The same is followed by a notice in Form No. 14 in terms of Annexure J. The petitioner is before me seeking for quashing of various notices in this petition. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri. Shankar Gowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel took me through the pleadings and invited my attention to the material facts to contend that the rejection of the second application is unsustainable in law. He wants a Writ of Certiorari in addition to a direction. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have perused the material on record. Kara Samadhana Scheme was introduced by the Government for the purpose of extending the benefits to the tax payers in the matter of settlement of tax arrears. The petitioner made an application and also sent a cheque towards settlement for the purpose of consideration of his application in terms of the Samadhan Scheme. An assessment order has been passed followed by a consequential notice. In the assessment proceedings, penalty has been levied on the petitioner. In those circumstances, he made one more application dated 15. 6. The petitioner made an application and also sent a cheque towards settlement for the purpose of consideration of his application in terms of the Samadhan Scheme. An assessment order has been passed followed by a consequential notice. In the assessment proceedings, penalty has been levied on the petitioner. In those circumstances, he made one more application dated 15. 6. 2001 and the same has been rejected by the respondents in terms of Annexure F. In Annexure F, the respondent states that the petitioner is guilty of his failure to make the payments in terms of the Scheme. The cheque issued by the petitioner stood dishonored. It was in those circumstances, Annexure F has been issued. Thereafter, they have issued Annexures F, H and J. The petitioners request for waiver of penalty and interest in terms of Kara Samadhana Scheme has been rejected in the light of earlier dishonor of the cheque and in the absence of any provision for consideration of the second application. The petitioner is unable to show any provision or any Government Order for the purpose of reconsideration of the second application in the given set of circumstances. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents are wrong in rejecting the second application particularly in the light of the dishonored cheque issued by the petitioner on an earlier occasion. It cannot be forgotten that only a bonafide dealer has to be encouraged and provided the benefits in terms of the scheme and not a dealer who defaults his payment by issuing a cheque without payment. No grounds are made out. Petition stands rejected. --- *** --- .