Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been preferred for restraining the respondents from taking action against the petitioner in view of the letter dated 13.4.2006 and 17.4.2006 (Annexure-9 and 11 respectively) as, according to the petitioner he is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.12.43 lakhs within a period of 3 months from 31.3.2006 and if not acceptable otherwise he is even ready to pay the amount in one go. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the said letter dated 13.4.2006 whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that if the entire amount outstanding under the O.T.S scheme is not paid by the petitioner within 15 days, the facility will be withdrawn forfeiting the amount in question. Petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed absolving him of all the liabilities after payment of the balance amount dues. 3. According to the petitioner in the year 1972 the petitioner- company was set up for manufacturing certain engineering products and in the year 1982 it entered into technical collaboration with Japanese company. The petitioner applied for term loan from the respondent - BICICO in November, 1982 and was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 50 lakhs subject to approval of re-finance of Industrial Development Bank of India. It is the contention of the petitioner that only Rs. 40.67 lakhs were disbursed in 17 months. Petitioner was constrained to arrange money from various sources at much higher rate of interest to complete the project. Petitioner started repayment of the loan amount and total sum of Rs.11,30,864.90 has been paid to BICICO. According to the petitioner repayments made till 1989 would be Rs. 23,65,864.90. However, action under Section 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 were undertaken by BICICO vide reference no. 1442 dated 20.7.1989 and because of the financial stringency petitioner was forced to close down the unit in the year 1990 before it could start its commercial productions. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents for One Time Settlement (O.T.S) for the dues but the respondents proceeded against the petitioner in a non maintainable certificate proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act against the petitioner and its promoters wherein he appeared and filed its objection. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents for One Time Settlement (O.T.S) for the dues but the respondents proceeded against the petitioner in a non maintainable certificate proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act against the petitioner and its promoters wherein he appeared and filed its objection. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 4, who was acting as certificate officer, BICICO, Patna asked the petitioner to clear the entire dues of Rs. 54,61,000.00, where after, petitioner immediately expressed his eagerness to pay the amount of Rs.33.43 lakhs after deducting already paid amount disbursed by BICICO enclosing the draft and cheques of the said payments. Petitioner asked for some more time for repayment asking the authorities to keep the encashment of the cheques in abeyance till 31.6.2006, which was arbitrarily refused by the respondents by letter dated 7.3.2006. Thereafter, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner in the certificate proceeding for realization of dues of Rs.5,54,86,000/-, which is highly disputable. In the circumstances, petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents despite being willing to liquidate the genuine amount has moved this court for the aforesaid relief’s. 4. Respondents, on the other hand, through their counter affidavit have stated that petitioner is a habitual defaulter. He had claimed relief under the O.T.S Scheme, 2004 under the category of non commissioned unit. But when he was asked to submit necessary documents in order to support the same, he failed to submit the documents. Even the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured and huge outstanding amount of Rs. 16,64,75,220/- in fact were found outstanding dues against the petitioner as on 31.3.2008, the detail of which was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.5.2008 and 26.5.2008, brought on record by way of I.A No. 1675 of 2008(annexed as Annexure-20 & 20A). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner being habitual defaulter, steps for action were taken under Section 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 by BICICO. However, under the O.T.S Policy maximum payment period is 6 months only and, therefore request of the petitioner was not accepted for extension of time. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner being habitual defaulter, steps for action were taken under Section 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 by BICICO. However, under the O.T.S Policy maximum payment period is 6 months only and, therefore request of the petitioner was not accepted for extension of time. 5. From the submissions of the parties and from the several affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, it appears that in a matter relating to realization of outstanding dues relating to the corporation, the issue is pending before this court since, 2006 and although there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, but respondents have failed to take effective steps in accordance with law as permissible under the terms of agreement and under the Act under which they are governed for realization of dues. From the submissions of the parties, it appears that the actual quantum of outstanding dues is also in dispute on account of conflicting claims made by the parties. Under the circumstance, it would be desirable that the respondents be directed to take prompt decision related to the final outstanding liabilities of the petitioner in respect of the loan disbursed by BICICO after adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, petitioner is directed to approach the respondents- Managing Director, BICICO, Patna by filing a fresh representation along with all the necessary documents including the relevant materials showing the detail of payment made together with necessary proof, thereof within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order of this court. If such representation is filed or even otherwise, the respondent- Managing Director, BICICO, Patna, after proper and thorough scrutiny of the petitioner's account will pass a speaking and reasoned order determining the liability of the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law and the terms and condition of the agreement on the basis of which loan was disbursed to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks, thereafter, and it shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. In the meanwhile, it is open for the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount against him before the corporation. 8. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks, thereafter, and it shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. In the meanwhile, it is open for the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount against him before the corporation. 8. It is made clear that after the determination of the liability, respondent-corporation shall proceed to take steps for realization of the amount against the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of and the I.A. No. 1675 of 2008, 1043 of 2007 & 1010 of 2010 are also disposed of.