Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. M/s Technology Syndicate Private Limited Company is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and having its registered office at Ranchi. It has taken certain loans from Bihar State Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The company was in heavy debts. The Corporation come out with One Time Settlement Scheme, 2006, which gave various concessions to different entrepreneurs who worked in default. It appears that the company aforesaid was interested in liquidating the dues taking advantage of One Time Settlement Scheme but its managing director was not in India and as such he executed a power of attorney from United State of America in favour of a relative who in turn approached the Corporation with an application on behalf of the company to make settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme. The Corporation expressed its inability to entertain the application in view of clause 11(3) of the Scheme which provides that any proprietor/Partner/Director duly authorised by the company, can make an application for settlement under the Scheme. The Corporations stand is that though the power of attorney has been executed by Sri Sachidanand Sinha, who is the Managing Director the said power of attorney does not specifically authorised the petitioner to make the said payment. To my mind One Time Settlement Scheme is a scheme giving certain benefits to a entrepreneur within a fixed time. The Managing Director being not available in the country an attempt has been made to comply and get advantage under the scheme. I think it would be hyper technicality to refuse the settlement and deny the benefit of the Scheme on this technicality. In this connection I may quote usefully from judgement of Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemical and Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 152 . "The answer to this is in the words of Lord Dennings "Now I know that a public authority cannot to stopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality "(Seo Wells vs. Minister of Housing and Local Government, (1967) 1 WLR 1000 at P. 1007." 3. In my view, interest of the Corporation is to receive the money and the interest of the company is to liquidate end if two interests are not at clash then such technicality should not come in the way. 4. I accordingly direct that the application and the money offered by the petitioner on behalf of the said Company be accepted towards the settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme. 5. The writ application stands allowed.