ORDER Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Yadav, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) For setting aside the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 by which the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners concerned under Bihar State Financial Corporation OTS Scheme 2006 has been rejected. (ii) For a direction upon the concerned respondent(s) to accept the petitioner''s application and settle dispute/Claim under Bihar State Financial Corporation OTS Scheme 2006 and direct the respondents to consider the same, and the respondents may also be directed not to take any coercive action as against this petitioner till the disposal of the present case, since the proprietor of firm is handicapped poor beneficiary, till today petitioner paid more than Rs. 63000/- for Rs. 15,800/- i.e. financed amount. (iii) Farther prayer has been made for a direction upon the concerned respondent to consider the case of this petitioner sympathetically also on the fact that out of Rs. 50,000/- of sanctioned amount only Fifteen thousand and odd had been issued/disbursed to him and only due to inaction the petitioner was unable to start his unit and since beginning he had tried to resolve the issue in view of the earlier order passed by this Hon''ble Court, the petitioner has approached the authority time and again but no positive action has been taken." 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows:- a) In the year 1980, the original writ petitioner had approached Bihar State Financial Corporation for grant of some financial assistance and pursuant to such application, the loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs. 50,000 / - on 30.08.1981. b) On 26.10.1981, an amount of Rs. 9800/ - was disbursed and thereafter on 24.02.1982 further amount of Rs. 6,000/ - was disbursed. Thus total disbursed amount was Rs. 15,800/- out of total sanctioned amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. Subsequently in the year 1995, the petitioner came to know that the respondents are claiming an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- and an advertisement for auction was published in the newspaper on 14.12.1995. c) On 20.02.1995, the Unit of the petitioner was sold out to one Rudra Narayan Mahto for an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-. 50,000/ -. Subsequently in the year 1995, the petitioner came to know that the respondents are claiming an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- and an advertisement for auction was published in the newspaper on 14.12.1995. c) On 20.02.1995, the Unit of the petitioner was sold out to one Rudra Narayan Mahto for an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-. d) Under said circumstance, the original writ petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.].C. No. 2170 of 1998(R) which was allowed Vide order dated 05.10.1999 and the sale order dated 20.02.1998 was quashed on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 50,000/ - within four weeks from the date of the order and direction was issued to the respondents to serve the details of the calculated amount which ultimately became due from the original writ petitioner. e) Against this, L.P.A. No. 475/1999 (R) was preferred by the Bihar State Financial Corporation which was remanded to the learned Single Judge Vide order dated 28.03.2000 for fresh consideration. f) Thereafter Vide order dated 05.07.2000 reasoned order was passed by this Hon''ble Court whereby the action of the respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation was deprecated and auction was set aside with certain direction to the petitioner also. The operative portion of the judgment dated 05.07.2000 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- In the result, this application is, therefore, allowed and the sale order dated 20.02.98 is quashed. This order shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within four weeks from today and thereafter the Corporation will serve the detailed calculation of the amount which ultimately found due against the petitioner. The said calculation sheet shall be served upon the petitioner within a month from the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- The petitioner may also make representation to the Corporation if he will not be satisfied with the said calculation. The rest of the amount ultimately found due against the petitioner shall be paid by him within six months thereafter. It goes without saying that the respondent no. 50,000/- The petitioner may also make representation to the Corporation if he will not be satisfied with the said calculation. The rest of the amount ultimately found due against the petitioner shall be paid by him within six months thereafter. It goes without saying that the respondent no. 4 shall be entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him with the Corporation and he may also claim interest, if any, which shall be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law." g) Against this, L.P.A. No. 286/2000 was filed and the same was decided Vide judgment dated 14.08.2000 and the L.P.A. was dismissed with certain directions and modifications. The relevant portion of the judgment in quoted here-in-below. "In this background, if the learned Single Judge has deprecated the sale, made in the year 1998, i.e. after about three years of advertisement dated 14th December, 1995, I am not inclined to differ with such finding. However, if the petitioner-respondent no. 1 fails to pay the amount as per the order of the learned Single Judge, it will always be open to the appellant-BSFC to take steps in accordance with law. Further, in view of pendency of the appeal, the period allowed by the learned Single Judge is extended to the extent that the period to be counted from the date of decision of this appeal." h) The order dated 14.08.2000 passed in L.P.A. No. 286/ 2000 was challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 22792 of 2002 but the same was dismissed Vide order dated 13.12.2002. i) It has been further stated in paragraph no. 30 of the writ petition that on 20.10.2000, statement of account was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to pay Rs. 2,50,412 i.e. after deduction of Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 5100/ - which was paid in View of the order passed by the Hon''ble Court (Rs. 50,000/-) against which the petitioner filed representation dated 06.1.2001 disputing the calculation made by the respondents and the representation was dismissed Vide memo no. 1226/ Z-IV dated 23.01.2001. Thereafter again a representation dated 07.03.2001 was filed. In the meantime, OTS scheme of the year 2004 was floated by the respondents in which the original writ petitioner filed representation, but no order was passed on the proposal of the petitioner of the year 2004. 1226/ Z-IV dated 23.01.2001. Thereafter again a representation dated 07.03.2001 was filed. In the meantime, OTS scheme of the year 2004 was floated by the respondents in which the original writ petitioner filed representation, but no order was passed on the proposal of the petitioner of the year 2004. Thereafter another OTS scheme of the year 2006 was floated and the original writ petitioner applied for OTS scheme 2006 to which the petitioner had received the response Vide letter dated 27.09.2006 wherein the petitioner was informed that the respondents would take legal opinion from their Advocates in this regard. The petitioner deposited the required amount as per OTS amounting to Rs. 7900/ - however by the impugned letter dated 14.12.2006, application of OTS of the original writ petitioner was rejected by saying that OTS scheme 2006 is not acceptable and the reason assigned in the impugned order is as follows:- "The concern ZVI/s Maa Durga Plastic Works, Ranchi has applied under BSFC OTS Scheme-2006-PLAN ''A'' while examining the eligibility of the concern under BSFC O.T.S. Scheme-2006 it has been found that the unit was sold but subsequently the sale had been set aside by the Hon''ble High Court. The Corporation has complied the order of the Hon''ble High Court and refunded the sale consideration money to the purchaser, however, the original promoter of the concern has not fulfilled the order of the Hon''ble High Court and not made payment to the Corporation as per the calculation sheet given by the Corporation in light of the order of the Hon''ble High Court as such the concern is not eligible for getting benefit of OTS Scheme-2006. O.T.S. Scheme-2006 of the Corporation cannot be allowed to become a tool for circumventing the order of the Hon''ble High Court. " j) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are strictly guided by one time settlement scheme 2006 and the original writ petitioner fully qualified for the one time settlement scheme 2006. The impugned order rejecting the application of the original writ petitioner under one time settlement scheme could not have been passed on the ground that the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court has not been complied. 5. The impugned order rejecting the application of the original writ petitioner under one time settlement scheme could not have been passed on the ground that the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court has not been complied. 5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the respondents particularly in View of the fact that the order dated 05.07.2000 passed by this Hon''ble Court in C.W.].C. No. 2170 of 1998(R) is binding on both the parties. From perusal of operative portion of the said order it is clear that on the one hand, the respondents was to refund the auction money to the successful purchaser with interest and on the other hand the petitioner was supposed to 6. deposit Rs. 50,000 / - within four weeks and thereafter the respondent was supposed to serve the detailed calculation to the petitioners and the petitioners were also entitled to make representation to the corporation if they were not satisfied with the calculation of the respondents and the amount ultimately found due against the petitioners was to be paid by them within six months thereafter. The counsel for the respondents submits that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited on 28.09.2000 which was beyond the period prescribed. Further, upon the calculation sheet of the respondents, the petitioners filed representation on 06.01.2001 which was rejected Vide order dated 23.01.2001. Thereafter the petitioners filed another representation, but did not pay the amount and tried to avail one time settlement scheme 2004 and also one time settlement scheme 2006. Counsel for the respondents in View of the specific order passed by this court regarding obligation and counter obligation in connection with the original writ petitioner and the respondents in the judgment dated 05.07.2000 and the original writ petitioner having not complied with his part of the obligation by not making payment of the balance amount as directed by this Hon''ble Court, the impugned order has been passed. The counsel submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The counsel further submits that otherwise also the action of the original writ petitioner being not bonafide, the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The counsel submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The counsel further submits that otherwise also the action of the original writ petitioner being not bonafide, the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and materials available on record this court finds that there was specific direction issued'' by this court in the judgment dated 05th July 2000 passed in C.W.].C. No. 2170 of 1998(R) wherein following directions were issued :- (a) The sale order dated 22.09.1993 was quashed; (b) This was subject to the condition that the petitioner was to deposit the sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the order; (c) Thereafter respondents corporation to serve details of calculation of the amount which would be found due from the original writ petitioner; (d) Calculation sheet was to be served upon the original writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of deposit of Rs. 50,000/ - (e) The original writ petitioner was also entitled to make representation to the corporation , if not satisfied with the calculation; (f) The rest of the amount ultimately found due against the original writ petitioner was to be paid by the original writ petitioner within six months thereafter. (g) There was also a direction that the successful bidder shall also be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him with the corporation and he may also claim interest. 7. It is admitted fact that the auction amount was refunded to the successful bidder with interest by the corporation and the amount of Rs. 50,000 / - was deposited by the original writ petitioner on 28.09.2000. In View of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 286/ 2000(R) dated 14.08.2002, the period which was allowed by the Single Judge was extended and was directed to be counted from the date of the order dated 14.08.2002. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made prior to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 286/2000 (R) dated 14.08.2002. The calculation of the dues was also forwarded by the respondents to the original writ petitioner prior to that date. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made prior to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 286/2000 (R) dated 14.08.2002. The calculation of the dues was also forwarded by the respondents to the original writ petitioner prior to that date. The application objecting the calculation was filed by the original writ petitioner on 06.01.2001 which was rejected by the Corporation on 23.01.2001. Thereafter only option which was left to the petitioner was to make payment of the balance amount which was contemplated in the order dated 05.07.2000 which in View of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 286/ 2000 (R) stood extended to six months from 14.08.2002. But the original writ petitioner did not comply with the direction issued in detailed in the order dated 05.07.2000 passed in C.W.].C. No. 2170 of 1998 (R) read with L.P.A. No. 286 / 2000 (R) and instead of that, tried to avail the benefits of one time settlement scheme which was later floated by the respondents . 8. During the course of the argument, the counsel for the Binit/ A.F.R. petitioners has challenged the calculation which was forwarded by the respondents, but from the prayer made in the writ petition it is apparent that the calculation forwarded by the respondents to the original writ petitioner as well as the letter by which the representation of the original writ petitioner in connection with calculation was rejected i.e. letter dated 23.01.2000 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition are not under challenge and accordingly it appears from the prayer made in the writ petition that the original writ petitioner had not challenged the calculation which was forwarded by the respondents to the original writ petitioner. On account of the fact that the original writ petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Hon''ble Court regarding the payment as contained in the order dated 05.07.2000 passed in C.W.].C. No. 2170/1998(R) read with the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 286/2000 (R), this court is of the considered View that the action of the original writ petitioner was not bonafide and the original writ petitioner after having taken benefit of the aforesaid two orders, has not taken care to abide by his counter obligation. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered View that the impugned order rejecting the offer of one time settlement as made by the original writ petitioner has been rightly passed by the respondents. Further, considering the fact that the action of the original writ petitioner was not bonafide, this court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.