JUDGEMENT 1. As counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit by petitioner have been filed and pleadings are completed, with consent of parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and are virtually covered by the decision of this Court under similar circumstances in the case of Anil Kumar Verma vs. The State of Bihar being C.W.J.C. No. 12835 of 2007 decided on 8.12.2008. 3. The petitioner was a defaulter of repayment of term loan taken from the Bihar State Financial Corporation, a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Considering the difficulties and viabilities of industries in Bihar and effort to mop up debts, the Corporation came up with One Time Settlement Scheme, 2006. The petitioner who for various reasons that which we are not concerned had taken a loan of Rs. 4.59 lakhs was now liable to repay about Rs. 40.51 lakhs tried to take advantage of this One Time Settlement Scheme, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as O.T.S., 2006). It was required to make an application with certain upfront deposit as per the scheme. Petitioner, thereafter, made an application under Platinum 110 Scheme under the O.T.S., 2006 in which he was required to pay 110% of the Principle outstanding plus other charges as full and final settlement of all his outstanding dues. The application money had to be 50% of the principle outstanding and the period for payment of balance amount was one month from the date of acceptance by the Corporation of petitioners application. Petitioner accordingly made an application depositing Rs. 2,29,691/- on 30.10.2006 and waited for communication of acceptance. It is not in dispute that the acceptance letter was dated 26.2.2007 and was not in fact sent to the petitioner but had been sent to the Branch Office of B.S.F.C. at Motihari for communication to the petitioner. This is evident from the copy of the said letter appended to the writ application. The petitioner was then informed by the Branch Office vide their letter dated 14.3.2007 that the order of B.S.F.C. was being sent by registered post which was received by the petitioner on 16.3.2007. In the order accepting settlement, last date for payment was 26.3.2007 i.e. almost within ten days of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner was then informed by the Branch Office vide their letter dated 14.3.2007 that the order of B.S.F.C. was being sent by registered post which was received by the petitioner on 16.3.2007. In the order accepting settlement, last date for payment was 26.3.2007 i.e. almost within ten days of the receipt of the letter. It may be noted here that petitioner had made application on 30th October, 2006 and the response/acceptance was being received after more than four months giving hardly 10 days time to make the entire balance payment of Rs. 2,88,097/- as against one month time under the Scheme, It is not in dispute that the petitioner immediately responded to the Corporation through its branch office at Motihari from whom he had received the letter of acceptance. On 20th March, 2007 even before the date fixed for final payment and within days of having received the settlement order, petitioner requested to be permitted to pay the balance amount in two installments but there was no response from the Corporation. It is accordingly prayed by the petitioner that the Corporation be made obliged to accept the balance amount and close petitioners account. 4. In the counter affidavit, Corporation has accepted that indeed petitioner had filed his request for extension of time but the Branch Office of the Corporation did not forward the said letter to the Head Office of the Corporation as such the Corporation could not respond at all. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, Corporation has admitted that it had granted extension of time to various units to deposit the money but as the request of the petitioner did not reach the BSFC Head Office, the same was not granted to the petitioner. 5. In my view, as the Corporation itself has admitted in this case as also in the facts as noted in the case of Anil Kumar Verma (supra) that the Corporation had been extending time for deposit of the settlement amount the petitioner was entitled to similar treatment. It was thus deprived of a golden opportunity to exit from the debt merely because the Branch Office of the Corporation slept over petitioners application and did not forward to the Head Office for its consideration. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for fault of BSFC itself. 6. It was thus deprived of a golden opportunity to exit from the debt merely because the Branch Office of the Corporation slept over petitioners application and did not forward to the Head Office for its consideration. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for fault of BSFC itself. 6. I therefore direct that within 45 days from today, the petitioner would deposit with the Corporation the balance of Rs. 2,88,097/- which the Corporation will accept as balance due under O.T.S. Scheme, 2006, Corporation on receipt of the said amount would calculate interest on the said amount so deposited now starting from 1st April, 2007 at the rate of simple interest 12% up to date and intimate to the petitioner which the petitioner would deposit within 45 days of receipt thereof. On deposit of the interest as calculated above on the balance amount, the petitioners loan account would be satisfied and closed for all purposes. All documents which the petitioner may have furnished to the Corporation to secure the loan would be returned and it would be free from encumbrance immediately thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.