ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sale process being undertaken by respondent-Corporation in favour of respondent no.6 under the One Time Settlement Scheme of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.T.S. Scheme’ for the sake of brevity). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 were partners of M/s S.M. Industries, which was put on sale and subsequently a sale order was passed in the year 1999 in favour of respondent no.6 and possession was given to her. Subsequently the possession was recovered and the sale order was recalled. He further submits that in the year 2006 process of auction sale was adopted but no progress was made in that regard and subsequent thereto in the year 2010 O.T.S. Scheme was introduced in the Corporation and respondent no.6 applied, whereafter sale order was issued in her favour for Rs.3.17 lacs although the petitioner, who was one of the two defaulter-promoters, was ready to pay Rs. 5.21 lacs as per his offer made in the year 1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three points for consideration before this Court, namely, (i) that respondent no.6 being wife of respondent no.5, namely, a defaulter-promoter cannot be granted the benefit of O.T.S. Scheme, (ii) that the petitioner being fully qualified for O.T.S. Scheme was illegally not considered by the Corporation for the said purpose and (iii) that the decrease in the value of land from Rs.5.21 lacs in 1999 to Rs.3.17 lacs in the year 2010 cannot be held to be legal and proper. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the said unit namely, M/s S.M. Industries defaulted in payment of loan amount inspite of letters issued by the Corporation for the said purpose, the Corporation had to advertise for its auction sale in Hindustan Times on 26.03.1995. In response to the said advertisement, a tender for purchase of unit on balance outstanding was received on 17.10.1995 from one Mr. In response to the said advertisement, a tender for purchase of unit on balance outstanding was received on 17.10.1995 from one Mr. Safful Majid, but before any step could be taken he died in the year 1996, whereafter his daughter Nargis Parveen (respondent no.6) approached the Corporation for sale of the unit in her favour in place of her father vide her letter dated 26.12.1996, whereupon the Corporation asked her to apply afresh and accordingly she submitted a fresh tender on 02.07.1998, considering which the Corporation decided the same in her favour and communicated its decision vide letter dated 10.06.1999. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that against the said decision of the Corporation, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 107 of 2000, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.01.2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 328 of 2000 and the writ petition was restored vide order dated 03.03.2000. Even after restoration of the said writ petition, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press it, which was again dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 11.04.2000. After that no step was taken by the petitioner in that regard nor did he ever approach the Corporation with respect to any such matter and all of a sudden he approached this Court after passage of more than a decade. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the O.T.S. Scheme was allowed in favour of respondent no.6 not as a wife of defaulter-promoter but as a tenderer, who had filed her tender in the year 1998 after the death of her father, who was the original tenderer and the sale order was passed in her favour in the year 1999, which was challenged by the petitioner in the abovementioned writ petition, but he could not succeed. He also stated that as per the sale order, respondent no.6 had paid some money earlier, whereas, some amount was due and hence when the O.T.S. Scheme came into force, she was fully entitled to apply for it in the said capacity. 8. He also stated that as per the sale order, respondent no.6 had paid some money earlier, whereas, some amount was due and hence when the O.T.S. Scheme came into force, she was fully entitled to apply for it in the said capacity. 8. So far the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances respondent no.6 was fully entitled to the benefit of the O.T.S. Scheme not as a wife of the defaulter-promoter rather on the basis of her tender, which she had submitted as far back as in the year 1998 in place of her father, who was the original tenderer. It was further submitted that twice notices were sent to the petitioner, but he never turned up with the money although more than sufficient opportunities were given to him for that purpose, whereas, on the other hand, respondent no. 6 had throughout remained in possession of the premises in question and has now paid the entire amount as per the O.T.S. Scheme and, thereafter, sale order was passed in her favour. Hence the petitioner is not at all qualified for the O.T.S. Scheme as he had lost his interest more than a decade earlier as is apparent from his inaction as well as dismissal of his writ petition, against which he did not take any step. So far the decrease in the value of the land is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that under the O.T.S. Scheme, the balance outstanding comes down as per the calculation made by the authorities in that regard. Hence, the actions of respondent-authorities are quite legal and justified. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record and arguments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the sale order was made in favour of respondent no.6 as far back as in the year 1999, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court, but he failed, whereafter he did not take any step for more than a decade. Hence there was no occasion for the Corporation or its authorities to allow or pass any OTS Scheme in favour of the petitioner. 10. Hence there was no occasion for the Corporation or its authorities to allow or pass any OTS Scheme in favour of the petitioner. 10. So far respondent no.6 is concerned, the O.T.S. Scheme has not been made in her favour as the wife of the defaulter-promoter (respondent no.5), rather the O.T.S. Scheme was allowed in her favour only on the basis that her father was the original tenderer in the year 1995 and after his death she applied in his place and her tender was allowed by the Corporation as far back as in the year 1999, which had attained finality. Since she had made payment of some amount and the remaining amount was due when the O.T.S. Scheme came into force in the Corporation in the year 2000, she was entitled to the benefit of that scheme, which was rightly allowed by respondent-authorities in her favour, in incompliance of which she has also deposited the entire dues. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.