Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners grievance is that the petitioner had been making endeavor to get out of the work of debt trap of BICICO which had intially sealed the industry unmindful of the fact that unless the industry runs there can be no repayment. Petitioner asserts that there was demand of payment of rupees five lakhs for unsealing Payment was made. BICICO, even though a statutory authority and having a dominating power did not act as premised. The unit continued to be sealed. Further payment was required which was also again made. BICICO refused to open the units as given to understand by them to the petitioner while securing those payments. Ultimately BICICO came up with One Time Settlement Scheme. The said scheme provided for different settlement schemes in respect of different categories of defaulting units. The scheme had categorised the same. Petitioner being unable to decide as to whether it qualified in one category or the other, it gave out all the facts clearly without concealing any fact unambiguously to the BICICO and requested the BICICO to take a decision as to which category it would fall and accordingly communicate the amount for which settlement could be arrived. BICICO being statutory authority the author of the scheme and the implementor of the scheme, had full authority and duty bound to decide the question referred to it. It is submitted that instead of deciding which scheme the petitioner fell in BICICO gave out that the petitioner having claimed to be falling in a particular scheme the amount of settlement was specified therein. Petitioner immediately protested. It rightly, bonafidely and with all sense of responsibility pointed that it had not claimed that it fell into one or the other category. It was unable to decide it and had sought the decision of BICICO itself. It left it to the BICICO to decide the question. Petitioner was called for negotiation. In course of negotiation he was asked to make payment of rupees thirty lakhs upfront for OTS. Petitioner made that payment with a clear stipulation that the unit should be unsealed if it is decided to be that of sick industry under rehabilitation programme either at State level or by the BICICO and delt accordingly for OTS. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not conceal any fact. Petitioner made that payment with a clear stipulation that the unit should be unsealed if it is decided to be that of sick industry under rehabilitation programme either at State level or by the BICICO and delt accordingly for OTS. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not conceal any fact. It is not disputed that the petitioner had disclosed all material facts. Some decisions were taken by the corporation. The cheques were encashed. The petitioner was asked to make further payment of instalment. Further payments were made. All cheques were duly encashed. Further payment of interest for spread out payment was asked for. The same was paid. The result is that the petitioner acting pursuant to direction received from BICICO from time to time paid more than rupees ninety lakh which was the total amount required for a complete one time settlement. BICICO having thus taken its pound of flesh suddenly woke up and now come up with the order that in fact petitioner did not fall in the said category inspite of payments being demanded. accepted and encashed by BICICO. He was now required to make almost total amount of payment under a totally different category. It was accordingly now said that the dues had not been cleared and the petitioner still remained a Substantial defaulter. This is what has brought the petitioner to this Court. 4. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of BICICO, and on instruction front BICICO, has very fairly stated one thing that OTS policy was amanable to interpretation by the Managing Director of BICICO. Managing Director did issue an order whereby all industrial units, whose applications have been filed for being declared sick before State Level Committee and pending would be deemed to be falling under the said category of sick units. Similar was the case at hand. 5. Mr. Singh fairly states and agrees with the court that the said office order was not brought to the notice of the authority. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that whether it was sick or not one things is clear that the petitioner mad no representation as to its category. He left it to the Board to decide who was the authority competent in this regard. By conduct it is clear that the Board put the petitioner in a particular category and demanded payment. The petitioner without demurr made payment. He left it to the Board to decide who was the authority competent in this regard. By conduct it is clear that the Board put the petitioner in a particular category and demanded payment. The petitioner without demurr made payment. Now in view of the conduct of the corporation it is estopped from resiling from its earlier stand. Being a statutory corporation it is bound by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It cannot paly hide and seek or behave like Jekyll and Hyde. The petitioner had put his crads down without conceling. The same was accepted. Decision was taken by BICICO. 7. The petitioner having paid over rupess ninety lakhs, BICICO cannot be permitted to change its stand. In view of these facts, Mr. Sigh, learned Counsel for BICICO has very fairly requested that time may be given to apprise this fact to the corporation so that corporation may abide by their ealier stand and do what justice demands. 8. Put up after three weeks retaining its position. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Jitendra Singh learned Counsel appearing for BICICO.