Judgment 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner against Certificate Case No. 32 of 2001-2002 as pending before the Certificate Officer, Begusarai on basis of requisition made by the State Bank of India for recovery of the balance outstanding as against the petitioner. 2. This is one of those exceptional cases in which, in the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is inclined to interfere but it shall not be treated as a precedent. 3. The petitioner had taken a loan for running his shop of readymade garments in the town of Begusarai. He had taken a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Being a young inexperienced man, he could not run his business fruitfully. He incurred heavy losses and he had to close his shop. Being in default, the present certificate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 2001-2002 for recovery of the outstanding of Rs. 1,86,017/- In the meantime, the Bank vide its tetter dated 21.3.2CC3 offered to settle the entire dues outstanding at Rs. 1,30,268/-. The petitioner was unable to pay the same because of closure of business and being out of job and sick. He tried for further remissions without success. He made payment of Rs. 55,000/- in July, 2005 and further Rs. 25,000/- in August, 2005, thus, making a total of Rs. 80,000/-. He was then directed by the Certificate Officer to deposit a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- as a condition for withdrawal of warrant of arrest issued against him. Apparently being in helpless situation, he approached this Court by the present writ application. He clearly pleaded that his business having failed, he had become a landless person and was earlier the only earning member of the family. He was not in a position to deposit any further money. He had no assets to conceal nor was he in a position to in any manner defraud the Bank. It appears when the writ petition was initially taken up, the petitioner understood that as the Bank had offered to settle his entire outstanding at Rs. 1,30,268/- and he had already paid Rs. 80,000/- only about 50,000/- was left and, as such, agreed to liquidate the entire dues if he was given time. He was, accordingly, given liberty by order dated 21.9.2005 but could deposit only Rs. 5,000/-. 1,30,268/- and he had already paid Rs. 80,000/- only about 50,000/- was left and, as such, agreed to liquidate the entire dues if he was given time. He was, accordingly, given liberty by order dated 21.9.2005 but could deposit only Rs. 5,000/-. This Court, inter alia, did not appreciate the conduct of the petitioner and ordered his personal presence as would appear from order dated 5.4.2006 passed in the writ proceedings. He was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000/- and apply for a compromise and also be present in the Court on the next hearing. Later, this Court directed the learned Senior Counsel for the Bank to give a compromise proposal. In the meantime, petitioner deposited further sums of money totalling to Rs. 50,000/-, thus, by the time this matter was taken up again, he had undisputedly paid Rs. 1,35,000/- after institution of the certificate proceedings. 4. It appears, as is the practice of the Bank, the amounts paid were first adjusted towards outstanding interest and then towards principal outstanding. Ultimately, Bank has filed a statement alongwith its affidavit dated 23.8.2006 wherein it has stated that after adjusting the aforesaid payments of Rs. 1,35,000/-, there still remains an outstanding amount of Rs. 50,017/- towards principal and interest of Rs. 99,720/- accrued since institution of the certificate proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel for the Bank submitted that if the petitioner pays the balance principal outstanding ol Rs. 50,017/-, the Bank would close his account. 5. The petitioner then maintained that he was jobless. He was working as daily wager. He had no means to pay even a single penny. Even to pay Rs. 1,35,000/-, as above, he had to depend upon donalions and contributions from others. At this stage, this Court recorded the following order on 15.9.2006: On the last date Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Bank had very fairly stated that in case the petitioner pays Rs. 50,000/- being the principal outstanding, the bank would accept the same as full and final settlement of all dues. The petitioner expresses his absolute helplessness in the matter. He states that all assets, that he could have in his hand, have been sold by him to pay or substantial part of dues amounting to dues Rs. 1,35,000/-. 50,000/- being the principal outstanding, the bank would accept the same as full and final settlement of all dues. The petitioner expresses his absolute helplessness in the matter. He states that all assets, that he could have in his hand, have been sold by him to pay or substantial part of dues amounting to dues Rs. 1,35,000/-. He is not in a position to pay anything more because he has already been borrowed substantial amount to make the earlier payment. At best his friends and relatives can extend payment to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- beyond which he cannot make payment. He further states that if he is required to pay anything more then he would rather not pay anything and suffer the consequences of civil imprisonment because he is in absolute helpless. Put up for orders on Thursday next (21.9.2006). 6. The position which emanates was that the petitioner was in such a helpless situation that in no manner he could avoid going to civil prison. It is in that light he put his hands up and surrendered himself. It was categorically stated on his behalf that had he known that in spite of payments already made and the maximum further payments which he could make of Rs. 25,000/- he would yet not be discharged, he would not have made any payment by seeking donations/contributions from others having no asset of his own and suffered civil imprisonment. This Court is genuinely convinced about the inability of petitioner to discharge his liability. By putting him in civil prison, Bank will not be able to squeeze out any more money. Even if it is able to do so, it would be at the cost of petitioner becoming indebted to private money lenders which would be putting the petitioner in a worse position as he would have no means to repay them. 7. In these special and peculiar facts, this Court observes that Bank had offered settlement at Rs. 1,30,268/- long after certificate proceedings were initiated for recovery of Rs. 1,87,017/-. The petitioner has undisputedly already paid Rs. 1,35,000/-. In my view in the very peculiar and unfortunate facts of the present case, I hold that the petitioner should stand discharged from his liability in the present case. 1,30,268/- long after certificate proceedings were initiated for recovery of Rs. 1,87,017/-. The petitioner has undisputedly already paid Rs. 1,35,000/-. In my view in the very peculiar and unfortunate facts of the present case, I hold that the petitioner should stand discharged from his liability in the present case. I may state that the averments of the petitioner that he is now landless, without any source of income and is relegated to the position of daily wage earner. have not been contradicted by the Bank. This is the primary reason why l have taken this view in the matter and it is because of this reason that I have held that this order of this Court will not be cited as a precedent because it is on peculiar facts of its own case that this order has been passed. 8. With the above direction and observation, this writ petition is disposed of.