Judgment RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The petitioner is a promoter of M/s. Alpha Plastic Industries, an industry which had taken a term loan from the respondent-Corporation. However, the industry defaulted in making repayment of the loan amount to the respondent-Corporation and the same was therefore, taken over by the Respondent-Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 . 2. Respondent-Corporation had thereafter come up with a scheme for restoration of units to the promoters whose units had been taken over by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner under this scheme opted to settle his case and the same was approved by the Settlement Committee of the Respondent-Corporation in its meeting held on 4.4.2006 at an agreed amount of Rs. 17.59 lacs. Rs. 4.41 lacs, being 25 percent of the settlement amount, was paid immediately by the Petitioner and 75 percent of the balance amount was to be paid by 30.6.2006. However, the petitioner was unable to pay this amount within the stipulated time and hence, had asked for an extension for the payment of the Settlement amount. 3. The petitioner was granted time till 25.3.2007 to pay the entire outstanding settlement amount. The petitioner arranged the entire balance amount and deposited the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 4.22 lacs with the respondent-Corporation on 26.3.2007. In addition, Rs.7700/- were also given in cash by the petitioner being processing charges, which were demanded by the officials of the respondent-Corporation. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had got the demand drafts for the outstanding amount prepared on 24.3.2007 itself. However, as 24.3.2007 and 25.3.2007 were holidays, being Saturday and Sunday respectively, the amount was deposited on the next working day i.e., 26.3.2007. 5. After deposit of the entire amount, the petitioner requested for restoration of the unit. However, the respondent-Corporation refused to restore the petitioners industrial unit to him. The case was accordingly put up before the Board. However, the respondent-Board refused to condone the delay of one day made by the petitioner in depositing the settlement amount and refused to restore the petitioners unit. The Corporation vide letter dated 8. 10.2007 informed the petitioner that the request for condonation of delay for depositing the settlement amount has been rejected and therefore, he was advised to pay the dues as per mortgage deed. 6. The Corporation vide letter dated 8. 10.2007 informed the petitioner that the request for condonation of delay for depositing the settlement amount has been rejected and therefore, he was advised to pay the dues as per mortgage deed. 6. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders Annexure P-3 dated 21.9.2007 and Annexure P-4 dated 8.10.2007 with a further prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the physical possession of the unit of the petitioner to him. 7. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent-Corporation by filing written statement, in which the facts as stated by the petitioner have not been disputed. However, it has been submitted that since the Board of Directors have refused to condone the delay and therefore, the petitioner cannot be handed over the possession of the unit to him, in spite of the fact that he has paid the entire settlement amount. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and after perusing the same, we find that the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation is unfair and unjust. Undisputedly, 25.3.2007, the last date for payment as per settlement was a holiday being Sunday and the petitioner has deposited the settlement amount on 26.3.2007 i.e., on the next working day of the office of the respondent-Corporation. From the agenda prepared by the office of the respondent-Corporation, it is clearly established that even the office has recommended to accept the payment of settlement amount by referring to a circular of the respondent-Corporation. However, the respondent-Corporation has taken an unfair and arbitrary stand while passing the resolution dated 21.9.2007 declining to condone the delay of one day. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that if the last date of the prescribed period is a holiday and the office is closed on that day and the prescribed act is done on the next day on which day the office is open, it is deemed to be done within the prescribed period. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is reproduced :- "10. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is reproduced :- "10. Computation of time.-(1) Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any Act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877) applies. (2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887." It may also be pointed out here that this is not the case of the respondent-Corporation that on 25.3.2007, which was a Sunday, the office of the Corporation was open. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, resolution of the respondent-Corporation dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. Consequently, order Annexure P-4 informing the petitioner about cancellation of restoration of unit is also quashed. 10. The respondents are further directed to hand over the physical possession of the unit i.e., M/s. Alpha Plastic Industries, Lalru to the petitioner immediately.