JUDGMENT 1. The appellant had prayed for quashing of the notice published in the Newspaper on 21st January, 2005 and 7th February, 2005 whereby the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BICICO") had decided to put the Unit of the appellant-petitioner on lease to intending parties and also to put the said Unit for auction sale. The learned single Judge has chosen not to interfere with the matter since the appellant-petitioner had not made any substantial payment against the amount which they had obtained from BICICO. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the said order of the learned single Judge. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Delip Jerath submits that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the offer of one time settlement which had been made by the BICICO which the appellant- petitioner could not avail of on account of the method used in calculating the amount claimed to be payable on account of such one time settlement. Admittedly, the said Scheme for payment on the basis of one time settlement was valid till 31st March, 2005, but, at the same time, the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court by way of writ application in respect of such one time settlement. As will appear from Annexure 13 to the memorandum of appeal, as sum of Rs. 87,83,000/- was payable, according to BICICO, on account of such one time settlement. The said figure has been disputed on behalf of the appellant and in Paragraph-35 of the memorandum of appeal; the figure as computed by the appellant has been set out as against the total claim made by the BICICO. 3. From the comparative statement of the two, it will be evident that certain amount had not been credited in the calculation made by the BICICO and, accordingly, on recalculation, it was noticed that a sum of approximately Rs. 75,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five lacs) would be payable by the appellant to BICICO by way of such one time settlement. 4. Learned counsel for the BICICO was directed on the last occasion to take instructions as to whether the BICICO shall be agreeable to one time settlement as offered earlier. Today when the matter is taken up, Mr. 75,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five lacs) would be payable by the appellant to BICICO by way of such one time settlement. 4. Learned counsel for the BICICO was directed on the last occasion to take instructions as to whether the BICICO shall be agreeable to one time settlement as offered earlier. Today when the matter is taken up, Mr. Das, appearing on behalf of the BICICO has urged that while his client is willing to accept the Scheme of one time settlement, the method on which the last calculation has been made, requires revision on account of the fact that the claim has been made on the basis that the appellant Unit was a non-commissioned Unit, whereas on the other hand the Unit in question was a fully commissioned operative Unit. Mr. Dass submission has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, the loan has been obtained by the appellant in respect of a Clinker Manufacturing Plant which was to be set up in the Cement Plant and the said Clinker Plant has not been set up and was, therefore, a non- commissioned Unit. 5. These are questions which are not possible for this Court to look into, but in the advertisement issued by the BICICO, a reference has been made to the Apex Body set up by the State of Jharkhand under its Industrial Policy for the purpose of rehabilitation of the Industries within the State of Jharkhand. It has been indicated that the matter relating to the Unit under Apex Body will be settled subject to permission of the competent authority. 6. Taking a cue from the submission of Mr. Jerath and after having heard learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand and keeping in mind the fact that the Unit of the appellant may be allowed to operate, we direct that out of the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs), as mentioned hereinabove, the appellant shall deposit with the BICICO a sum 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs) within four weeks from date. The appellant, within the said period, shall also deposit with the Apex Body all its documents in respect of its claim that the Unit in question is an incomplete and non-commissioned Unit and not a regular commissioned Unit, as claimed by the BICICO. The appellant, within the said period, shall also deposit with the Apex Body all its documents in respect of its claim that the Unit in question is an incomplete and non-commissioned Unit and not a regular commissioned Unit, as claimed by the BICICO. Copies of the said documents are also to be made available to the BICICO. The Apex Body shall, within a month of receipt of the said documents, cause enquiry into the claim made by the appellant regarding the status of the Unit after hearing both the appellant as also the BICICO and make its recommendation to the competent authority of the BICICO, who will thereafter take a decision in the matter regarding the categorisation of the appellant-petitioners Unit and shall thereafter indicate the balance amount payable in the event the Unit is found to be a commissioned Unit. 7. Let this matter stand adjourned till 23rd June, 2005, within which time the recommendation and the final decision must be made the authorities mentioned hereinabove. A copy of the recommendation should also be forwarded to the learned Advocate General, who shall make the same available to the Court for its use. 8. During the pendency of the matter, the interim order of stay as granted on 4th April, 2005 shall continue unconditionally for a period of four weeks from date and on deposit of the amount mentioned hereinabove, the same shall continue until further orders, In the event, the appellant defaults in payment of the aforesaid amount; the interim order of stay shall stand vacated. Pending hearing of the matter, the State of Bihar shall also take decision with regard to implementation of Annexure-9 to the memorandum of appeal. A copy of this order should be communicated to Mr. A. Allam, learned Advocate who is appearing for the State of Bihar. 9. Let a plain copy of this order be made available to learned counsels appearing for the parties.