Judgment MRIDULA MISHRA, J. 1. Prayer of the Petitioners in all these writ applications is similar as they have challenged some of the provisions of Circular No. 5/06-07 dated 15th September, 2006, as well as Circular No. 7/06-07 dated 4th November, 2006, issued by Bihar State Financial Corporation in its one time settlement scheme (OTS). Petitioners case is that the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of india as well as it violates the right guaranteed under the Right Of Information Act, 2005. 2. Initially these writ applications were filed for commanding the Respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the B.S.F.C.) to accept the Petitioners unit under general category and to issue application form for being applicant under B.S.F.C, O.T.S Scheme, 2006 which was being denied to them on some erroneous illegal and unjustified ground. 3. During the pendency of these writ applications Bihar State Financial Corporation modified its earlier decision extending the period for acceptance of application up to 5th February, 2007 and further declaring its decision to accept those entrepreneurs as applicants for O.T.S. Scheme 2006, who have failed to deposit the retention amount against the issuances of sale letters in respect of their units imposing one condition that such entrepreneurs are required to deposit the retention amount prior to the issuance of application form. According to the Petitioners the decision of the Respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation is illegal as the Petitioners case cannot to discriminated on the basis of one ineffective, inf ructuous and non existence sale letters and the Petitioners cannot be forced to deposit double amount being required by others in respect of whom no sale letter was issued. 4. Petitioners in all these writ applications are either promoters or guarantor of such units who defaulted in making repayment of their loans and sale letter were issued in respect of their Units. Some of the units were not put on sale but some of the units though put on Sale it could be materialized as the purchaser either retreated or no one turn up to purchase such units which were put on Sale. The B.S.F.C. announced O.T.S. scheme, 2006 whereby the entrepreneurs of sick units were invited to clear their over burden dues and for the same five natures of plan were announced. The B.S.F.C. announced O.T.S. scheme, 2006 whereby the entrepreneurs of sick units were invited to clear their over burden dues and for the same five natures of plan were announced. They were (1) Plantinum -110 (2) Gold-125, (3) Super -150 (4) Classic-2000 and (5) Standard. The scheme was first announced by Circular No. 5/06-07 dated 15th September, 2006. The Petitioners took it as golden opportunity for being relieved of the loan amount of B.S.F.C. rising day by day. They visited the concerned branch office of the B.S.F.C. for obtaining duly prescribed form after payment of Rs. 5,00 as its cost. The Branch Manager refused to issue application forms to the Petitioners saying that they are not eligible for the said scheme because there is one proviso under Clause 1(d)a meant for eligible category which says "However Promoters/guarantors of the unit for which sale Order has already been issued and action for retention of unit as per terms of the sale Order has not been taken by them shall not be eligible for taking benefits of this OTS scheme". 5. Petitioners represented before the Managing Director of the B.S.F.C. that the sale letter issued in respect of their units is now infructuous and non existent as it could not materialize as such putting such clause underthe OTS Scheme, 2006 is arbitrary and discriminatory. It.should be removed. Petitioners also prayed for extending further grace period of one fu|l month for depositing the required amount as they are going to be discriminated on account of conditions put under the OTS scheme, 2006. Since B.S.F.C. did not responded Petitioners have to file writ applications for a direction to the Respondent B.S.F.C. to accept their units under eligible category and to issue application forms for being applicant under the B.S.F. OTS Scheme 2006. 6. During the pendency of the writ applications B.S.F.C. came with revised scheme vide Circular No. 7/06-07 dated 4th November, 2006, contained in Memo No. 1766. The OTS scheme was modified to the extent that promoters/guarantors whose property has been put of sale but were not sold since, no purchaser arrived would be allowed to take out the facility of OTs Scheme, 2006 subject to deposit of retention amount prior to the issuance of application forms. The period for application forms were also extended to 5th February, 2007. 7. The period for application forms were also extended to 5th February, 2007. 7. Counsel for the Petitioners have challenged Clause F(1) of circular No. 7/06-07 dated 4th November, 2005, on the ground that it is evidently arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions under the Constitution of India. Petitioners as per the modified scheme are required to deposit the amount being double of the amount required by other applicants for the same purpose under OTS scheme simply because at one point of time the sale letter was issued but it did not materialize. On account of non existent and in effective and infructuous sale letters, they cannot be distinguished from other defaulters, who have been put under the privilege category. Counsel for the Petitioners have submitted that the Respondent B.S.F.C. cannot be allowed to act on pick and choose basis and the Petitioners cannot be deprived of this opportunity of being benefited by the fruits of OTS scheme. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of B.S.F.C. and its officials in all the writ applications. Mr. Giri appearing on behalf of the B.S.F.C. in all these cases has submitted that the Petitionersare defaulter promoters/guarantors whose units were put on auction sale and sale order was issued, Petitioners were given option for retention of their units but they failed to take any step for retention of the same by depositing retention amount and complying with other terms of the sale orders. Though sale order was cancelled but the Petitioners on account of non depositing the retention amount were held to be not eligible to avail the facilities of OTS Scheme, 2006. Since, several promoters/guarantors who have failed to deposit retention money applied for availing the benefit the scheme was modified and Only after paying the retention amount as stipulated.in their respective sale Order, the Petitioners can avail the benefit of OTS Scheme 2006. The prayer of the Petitioners do not warrant any indulgence by this Court as it will amount to interference with the policy decision of the corporation and the B.S.F.C. will also would be adversely affected. It has also been submitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the action of the B.S.F.C. where not a single provision of law has been violated. It has also been submitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the action of the B.S.F.C. where not a single provision of law has been violated. The B.S.F.C. also have to borrow money from Government and other financial institutions and they also have to pay interest thereon. In case the borrowers have failed to honour their commitments it is not expected that the direction can be issued to the corporation for realisation of loan advanced to them. 9. Only in two situations the writ court can interfere (1) when there is statutory violation on the part of the corporation or (2) where the corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably. Admittedly there is no violation of any statutory provision whether the corporation is acting unfairly and unreasonably, that is to be considered. The OTS Scheme, 2006 has to be judged on the touch stone of reasonableness and whether the corporation has acted unfairly and unreasonably. 10. Petitioners case is that the categorization by the B.S.F.C. under OTS scheme 2006 putting the buyer and the purchaser in two different categories is unreasonable specially when the alleged sale Order did not materialize. The sale Order which become non existence and infructuous is a dead sale letter. On the basis of such sale letter Petitioners cannot be asked to deposit retention money and they should also be treated under the general category and only after fulfilling such conditions which is applicable in the case of units coming in the general category they should also be allowed for taking benefits of OTS scheme. 11. On examination of the facts I find that OTS scheme are announced by the B.S.F.C. time to time for achieving two objects (1) the borrowers who have failed or defaulted in repayment of their loans should be given opportunity to unburden their financial liability so that being relieved of such financial liability they can proceed on the routes or industrialization of the State Secondly the loan money can be realised giving some concession and benefits to the promoters/guarantors. Since, the OTS scheme are for giving concession/benefits to promoters/guarantors/entrepreneurs, Petitioners being the defaulters cannot be treated as special class for availing this benefit. It is true that a corporation is not supposed to give loan and thereafter forged it as a bad debt and ultimately to go out of business. Since, the OTS scheme are for giving concession/benefits to promoters/guarantors/entrepreneurs, Petitioners being the defaulters cannot be treated as special class for availing this benefit. It is true that a corporation is not supposed to give loan and thereafter forged it as a bad debt and ultimately to go out of business. But simultaneously it is also true that the B.S.F.C. cannot act as private money lender when its main object is to promote industrialization giving loans to small and medium industries. The conditions which has been put in the modified OTS Scheme, 2006 specially for those promoters/guarantors in respect of whose units sale letters were issued and put on sale though did not materialize cannot be asked to fulfill the different conditions for taking benefit of OTS scheme when no such conditions has been put for any other defaulter, promoters/guarantors. The OTS Scheme, 2006, may not be violative of any statutory provisions but the conditions under Clause F(i) of the Circulars No. 7/06-07 dated 4th November, 2006, issued by the B.S.F.C. is certainly unfair and unreasonable to the extent promoters/guarantors whose property has been put on sale were not sold since, no purchaser arrived as they are not allowed to take the benefit of OTS scheme without depositing the retention money. Accordingly, Clause-F(i) of the modified OTS scheme 2006 is quashed.The Respondent B.S.F.C. is directed to accept the application forms of the Petitioners units treating them in the general category. Since, the last date for submitting the application form was 5th February, 2007, as such the B.S.F.C. is directed to accept the application forms of the Petitioners in case it is submitted by 20th February, 2007. 12. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14303 of 2006 has already submitted its application form by depositing retention money in Order to avail the benefit of OTS scheme, 2006, the retention money so deposited by the Petitioner Madan Prasad in C.W.J.C. No. 14303 of 2006 should be adjusted towards the other amount payable by the Petitioner. In case the Petitioners failed to submit their application forms within the stipulated period fulfilling all other requisite conditions under the OTS Scheme, they will not be allowed for further extension/concession in this regard. With the aforesaid directions/observations these applications are disposed of.