JUDGMENT 1. - A loan to the tune of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent-RIICO on 30.05.1995 and the entire amount has been disbursed to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner deposited certain amount in lieu of loan but failed to deposit the outstanding balance amount in pursuance to loan taken by him.On 23.03.2002 the petitioner moved proposal to the respondent for one time settlement and the same was accepted by the respondent for Rs. 171 lacs. On 20.04.2002 the petitioner deposited Rs. 11 lacks and accepted the proposal for Rs. 171 lacs subject to the condition of removal of high tension line from the petitioner's unit and also requested for certificate for obtaining benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. It is alleged that since the respondent has not removed the high tension line and has not given any certificate under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, therefore, the petitioner has not availed the benefit of one time settlement. 2. Since, the petitioner failed to deposit the outstanding loan, the respondent-RIICO issued notice under section 30 of State Financial Corporation Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'SFC Act') on 05.11.2003. 3. After receipt of the notice under section 30 of the SFC Act, the petitioner again moved a fresh proposal for one time settlement on 08.03.2004. The petitioner requested that his unit be declared as sick unit and high tension line should be removed from the industrial plot but the same was rejected by the RIICO on 31.05.2004. After rejection of the proposal of second one time settlement, the respondent also served a notice under section 29 of the SFC Act on 12.05.2004. 4. On 20.05.2004 the petitioner deposit Rs. 5 lacs in cash and also deposited cheque of Rs. 50 lacs with a condition that the one time settlement proposal should be communicated to the petitioner in writing and should be finalised and for removal of high tension line but the same was not accepted by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was well aware of this fact that there is a high tension line passing through the industrial plot and knowing this fact, he has constructed the factory. 5. 5. For issuing the certificate under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, the respondent also cannot-issue any certificate as the petitioner is not willing to avail the opportunity of one time settlement provided to him on several occasions. The petitioner submitted his conditional proposal to remove high tension line and to issue certificate under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. Even this court in the Second Stay Application considering the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner's unit as sick industry and pursuant to the circulars issued by the respondent from time to time. Pursuant to the order passed on 10.09.2004 on Second Stay Application, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent for the one time settlement but as the petitioner further not fulfill requisite requirements, therefore, the proposal of the one time settlement has been again rejected. 6. It appears that the petitioner only wants to avoid the demand of outstanding loan and time and again applied for one time settlement on certain conditions. Knowing this fact that the respondent-RIICO cannot remove the high tension line, it is for the R.S.E.B. to remove the same. Despite having knowledge of high tension line passing through his industrial plot, he has constructed the factory and making default In payment of outstanding loan, cannot put this condition to remove the high tension line. 7. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner it appears at he is not interested to settle ' his loan account, therefore, notices dated 05.11.2003, 31.03.2004, 20.05.2004 and 27.06.2004 have rightly been issued to the petitioner. 8. 1 find,. no illegality in the notices issued by the respondent-RIICO to the petitioner and same are rightly issued looking to the facts and circumstances. No interference whatsoever is called for, even otherwise the present writ petition involves-several disputed questions of facts, which cannot be settled while exercising extraordinarily power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of settled proposition of law this writ petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. The interim orders dated 08.07.2004 and 10.09.2004 also stand vacated. 11. The Stay Application also stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******