ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) To restrain respondent no.2 from taking any action u/s 29 of the SFC Act till the finalization of the rehabilitation proceeding initiated by joint effort of Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Small Industries Department, Government of Bihar, through Director of Industries cum Chairman Apex Body, Bihar. (b) For further commanding the respondent to reach one time settlement as agreed in 19th Meeting of Apex Body for rehabilitation of the unit on principal amount disbursed minus repayment. (c) For quashing the letter no.OTS/OPS/REC/203/2011 dated 22.11.2004 issued by respondent no.2 in terms of One Time Settlement Scheme-2004 for the reason that amount shown was without adjusting the repayment made by the petitioner. (d) For any other further order as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that it is a company set up to manufacture glass shell and other items with an installed capacity of 3300 MTPA and it applied for a term loan and against the total project cost of Rs.98.43 lacs, the respondent-Bihar State Credit Investment Corporation Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) sanctioned only Rs.64.94 lacs and the remaining amount of Rs.22.15 lacs was fixed as promoters’ contribution and Rs.11.34 lacs was by way of subsidy. It was also claimed that against the sanctioned amount of Rs.64.94 lacs, the respondent-Corporation disbursed a sum of Rs.58.43 lacs only, whereafter the project was completed in time in the year 1991 and started production on 13.09.1991. 3. It was also claimed that after completion of the project, petitioner required working capital finance and applied for the same before the State Bank of India, Hazaribagh Branch which rejected the said application in April, 1992 and without working capital petitioner continued to run the unit from its own resources and paid Rs.36.28 lacs out of total sanctioned amount of Rs.58.34 lacs. Since no working capital finance was given, the petitioner ultimately applied for declaring the unit sick in the year 1997 before the Apex body of the Corporation and for rehabilitation of the unit to make it viable. 4. Since no working capital finance was given, the petitioner ultimately applied for declaring the unit sick in the year 1997 before the Apex body of the Corporation and for rehabilitation of the unit to make it viable. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner unit was declared sick by the Committee on 27.06.1997 giving the reasons that for want of working capital, the unit had become sick, whereafter the Director of Industries wrote letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation to rehabilitate the petitioner unit by arranging working capital fund. The Board of the Corporation resolved on 18.08.1998 that a comprehensive rehabilitation package approved by the concerned agency and also approved by the State Level Apex Body with commitment from promoters/directors for induction of additional funds for the purpose of working capital tie up may be sent so that the case may be processed. 5. It was also claimed by the petitioner that the Director of Industries cum Chairman Apex body, Bihar, vide letter dated 05.01.2000 communicated that the main problem of the petitioner unit was non-availability of working capital finance from any commercial bank and hence a decision was taken that the petitioner’s case may be referred to SLBC with a request to take up their case so that working capital problem can be solved. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid resolution and decisions no step was taken mainly due to lack of co-ordination between the Commercial Bank and State Financial Corporation causing major difficulties to the small scale industries entrepreneurs. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that the petitioner represented before several authorities and it was finally agreed in the 19th meeting of Ministry of Industry to settle the dispute by making one time settlement and hence the petitioner filed representation before the Secretary Institutional Finance & Small Industries Service Institute. Thereafter, the Corporation in response to the resolution of the Apex Body meeting dated 29.10.2002 requested the petitioner’s company on 18.03.2003 to contact Zonal Officer, REC Zone III, but the Managing Director of the petitioner-company suffered from mouth cancer and was admitted in the hospital at Delhi on 12.03.2003 and could not approach the Corporation for one time settlement. 7. Thereafter, the Corporation in response to the resolution of the Apex Body meeting dated 29.10.2002 requested the petitioner’s company on 18.03.2003 to contact Zonal Officer, REC Zone III, but the Managing Director of the petitioner-company suffered from mouth cancer and was admitted in the hospital at Delhi on 12.03.2003 and could not approach the Corporation for one time settlement. 7. It was also claimed that while rehabilitation scheme was pending and one time settlement scheme was also agreed between the petitioner and the Corporation, the respondent-Corporation sent letter dated 22.11.2004 raising a demand of Rs.57,72,000.00 without any basis, in response to which the petitioner reminded the Corporation about one time settlement agreement and requested to indicate the exact OTS amount and the time for payment of the said OTS amount. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that no step was taken in that regard, although OTS of 2004 was again modified on 06.05.2005 and was extended up to 10th of July, 2005. It was also claimed that the petitioner unit is different from other units as it has become sick due to none of the reasons of the petitioner, rather due to inaction of the authorities concerned and accordingly the respondent was duty bound to take a sympathetic view so that OTS may be settled as agreed in the Apex Body meeting held on 29.10.2002. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the proceeding of the 21st meeting of Apex Body held on 18.07.2003 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1) clearly showed that the case of the petitioner was not dropped till that date and it was only resolved that in case the promoter does not comply the directions by 31.07.2003, the case may be dropped, hence the steps taken by Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises on 15.09.2011, 13.09.2011 and 23.09.2011 (Annexure-D, E & F) are absolutely frivolous and baseless. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the RBI circular for rehabilitation of Sick SSI Unit dated 16.01.2002 also provided general guidelines for rehabilitation of sick units which gave powers only to implement the scheme and not to drop it. He also averred that no provision was made in notification memo no.2113 dated 12.09.2006 for revocation. Hence he submitted that the scheme in favour of the petitioner should have been implemented. 11. He also averred that no provision was made in notification memo no.2113 dated 12.09.2006 for revocation. Hence he submitted that the scheme in favour of the petitioner should have been implemented. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the State contested the claim of the petitioner. They claimed that vide order dated 21.07.2011, this Court considered the matter and directed the authorities to finalise the rehabilitation proceeding within two months with respect to the petitioner, whereafter the matter was considered in the 5th meeting of State Level Apex Committee on 25.08.2011 (Annexure-D) and the Chairman of the Committee constituted a sub-Committee consisting three members to verify the petitioner unit physically and submit a report before the Committee focusing on the possibilities of rehabilitation of the unit in accordance with the RBI Guidelines. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that a Sub-Committee submitted its report dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure-E) stating that they visited the unit on 05.09.2011 and verified the physical assets (Plant and machinery of the unit) and found all assets to be only of scrap value and not suitable for further use in the production process and also that the unit was under huge liability of loan which made it non-viable for rehabilitation. The said report of the Sub-Committee was placed before the Apex Committee in its meeting dated 21.09.2011. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that after careful consideration and exhausted deliberations on the report of the Sub-Committee, the Apex Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that in the event of huge liability and physical assets of the unit being of only scrap value, the unit cannot be revived at all as per R.B.I Guidelines for rehabilitation and according to the decision of the Apex Committee, the Director of Industries, Bihar passed its order dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure-F). Hence, he submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition which is fit to be dismissed. 14. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, including the order of the Director of Industries dated 23.09.2011, it becomes quite clear that the case of the unit was already dropped from the proceeding of the Apex Committee in its meeting held on 18.07.2003 and it was not pending before the Committee as claimed by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter had been concealed by the petitioner. 15. The facts of the case also reveal that the petitioner unit had suffered due to its own undoings and inaction of its promoters and Director including Managing Director and hence there was nothing for the respondents to do anything for the petitioner even if they wanted to do something for them sympathetically. The materials also reveal that the procedure has been properly followed by the authorities in the instant case and hence there is no occasion for any interference in the matter by this Court under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.