ORDER 1. As both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 6th December 2005 passed in WP (C) No. 5305 of 2005, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant, Subodh Kumar Sharma taken loan from Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in between 1983 and 1985. The Corporation initially released a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- (one lakh twenty seven thousand five hundred) followed by a sum of Rs. 44,100/- (forty four thousand one hundred) in favour of Subodh Kumar Sharma. The Government of Bihar from Department of Industry, later on, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 23,100/- (twenty three thousand one hundred) on 6th January, 1986 as subsidy amount. It was deposited in the account of the Corporation but, according to Subodh Kumar Sharma, it was not released in his favour. 3. The case of appellant, Subodh Kumar Sharma is that a sum of Rs. 1,91,908/-(one lakh ninety one thousand nine hundred eight) has already been deposited by him by 17th March, 1992 but rest of the amount could not be deposited on account of unavoidable circumstances. In pursuance of One Time Settlement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as OTS Scheme), he obtained a Form and applied on 13th May, 2005 of one time settlement. As per the Scheme, 30% of the outstanding dues it deposited in one lump sum or in four equal quarterly installments with interest, one can take the benefit of OTS Scheme. The benefit of OTS Scheme in his case was allowed and it was shown that a sum of Rs, 20,18,976/- (twenty lakhs eighteen thousand nine hundred seventy six) was outstanding. 4. According to counsel for the appellant, Subodh Kumar Sharma. 30% of the outstanding dues of Rs. 20,18,976/- comes to Rs. 6.05,692.80/- paise (six lakhs five thousand six hundred ninety two and eighty paise). The grievance of Subodh Kumar Sharma is that the Corporation while settled the claim under OTS Scheme, instead of Rs. 6.05,692.80/- paise. they have demanded a sum of Rs. 7,15,029/-(seven lakhs fifteen thousand twenty nine). Thus, his grievance is only with regard to quantum of demand made by the Corporation while the benefit under OTS Scheme has been allowed. 5. Learned single Judge by impugned order dated 6th December, 2006 while did not interfere with the order of demand dated 19th July, 2005. 7,15,029/-(seven lakhs fifteen thousand twenty nine). Thus, his grievance is only with regard to quantum of demand made by the Corporation while the benefit under OTS Scheme has been allowed. 5. Learned single Judge by impugned order dated 6th December, 2006 while did not interfere with the order of demand dated 19th July, 2005. asked Subodh Kumar Sharma to deposit only a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) in four equal instalments and observed that such order was passed by the Court to avoid any dispute. The Corporation was asked not to charge any further interest on the amount. 6. The other appeal has been preferred by the Corporation, Subodh Kumar Sharma having asked to deposit only a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in four equal instalments but without interest. 7. Mr. M.S. Mittal, counsel for the Corporation submitted that a sum of Rs. 20,18,976/- was the due amount as on 3rd December, 2004 when Subodh Kumar Sharma obtained the Form. After five months i.e., on 13th May, 2005 when he deposited the Form, the outstanding dues being Rs. 23,83,428/- (twenty three lakhs eighty three thousand four twenty eight), including interest, as per OTS Scheme, a sum of Rs. 7,15,029/- was demanded. According to counsel for the Corporation, Subodh Kumar Sharma having already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,61,597/- (one lakh sixty one thousand five ninety seven), was liable to pay rest of the amount of Rs. 5,53.432/- (five lakhs fifty three thousand four thirty two). It was submitted that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to round-off the amount to Rs. 5,00,000/- nor could have waived the interest. 8. We have noticed the rival contentions made by the counsel for the parties. It appears that as per the OTS Scheme, certain percentage of the total amount is payable. If the amount is paid in one lump sum, in such case, no interest is payable but in case of payment in instalment, a person is liable to pay interest. The only dispute between the parties related to quantum of one time payment Le., whether the Corporation should have demanded a sum of Rs. 6,05,692.80/- paise on the basis of outstanding amount of Rs. 20,18,976/- or the Corporation has rightly demanded a sum of Rs. 7,15,029/- on total outstanding dues of Rs. 23,83,428/-. The only dispute between the parties related to quantum of one time payment Le., whether the Corporation should have demanded a sum of Rs. 6,05,692.80/- paise on the basis of outstanding amount of Rs. 20,18,976/- or the Corporation has rightly demanded a sum of Rs. 7,15,029/- on total outstanding dues of Rs. 23,83,428/-. The aforesaid issue having not been determined by the learned single Judge, it was not open for him to round off the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- nor it was open to him to allow Subodh Kumar Sharma to deposit the amount in four equal installments but without interest. In fact, we find that there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to interfere with the matter as there was a dispute relating to quantum of payment and calculation. 9. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 6th December, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in WP (C) No. 5304 of 2005 and dismissed the writ petition. 10. In the result, LPA No. 29 of 2006 is allowed and LPA No. 5 of 2006 stands disposed of.