JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. 3. Heard Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 7. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- For quashing the order dated 10.09.2001 issued by the respondent no. 1 vide Memo no. 973 (2911) dated 10.09.2001 (Annexure-10) by which the respondent no. 1 has refused to allow the petitioner to enjoy the (i) Interest benefit (w.e.f. 6.6.1986) the date of first disbursement with interest till date) AND (ii) Capital Subsidy (w.e.f. 7.10.1988 with interest till date) 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has moved this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1766 of 2001 wherein the petitioner had made two fold prayers, firstly , relating to quashing the demand notice dated 27.02.2001 for an amount of Rs. 4,14,247.50 issued by the respondent-corporation and secondly, to allow interest benefit w.e.f. 6.06.1986 as first instalment was paid by the petitioner along with capital subsidy on 07.10.1988. 6. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2001. From perusal of the order it appears that the petitioner had filed representation before the authorities but the same was not disposed of and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of with direction upon the respondent authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by an speaking order. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 1766 of 2001, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2001. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that matter regarding sanction of capital subsidy could not be taken up by the respondent state of Jharkhand and the subsidy file of the unit of the petitioner was transferred to the Jharkhand State as the unit falls within the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Accordingly he submits that no final decision in connection with capital subsidy has been taken in connection with unit of the petitioner by the State of Jharkhand. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- corporation ought to have waited till the matter in connection with capital subsidy is finally decided by the State of Jharkhand. 10. Accordingly he submits that no final decision in connection with capital subsidy has been taken in connection with unit of the petitioner by the State of Jharkhand. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- corporation ought to have waited till the matter in connection with capital subsidy is finally decided by the State of Jharkhand. 10. After hearing counsel for the petitioner this court finds that the after the order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 1766 of 2001 dated 01.05.2001 the petitioner had raised grievance before the respondent- corporation in connection with two issues. Firstly, the petitioner prayed for grant of benefit to reduce the interest on account of refinance w.e.f. 06.06.1986 and secondly, the petitioner should be granted capital subsidy at the earliest. 11. Both the points of the petitioner has been rejected by the Bihar State Financial Corporation by the impugned order dated 10.09.2001. The first point has been rejected on the ground that the respondent corporation has not availed any refinance in connection with account of the petitioner and accordingly there is no question of reduced rate of interest on account of refinance. So far as other point is concerned, the respondent B.S.F.C. has categorically mentioned in the impugned order that capital subsidy for the petitioner was not sanctioned and as per the impugned order the matter is still pending before the state authorities of the State of Jharkhand. This court finds that the reasons assigned for rejecting the aforesaid two points are sound reasons and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Admittedly the authority to sanction the capital subsidy is the State and this court is of the considered view that payment of dues of the Corporation cannot be deferred on the point of pendency of the matter regarding grant of subsidy before the State Government. In such circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.