JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. — Aggrieved by non-consideration of the proposal submitted by the petitioner to the opposite parties for settlement of the loan amount under One Time Settlement Scheme and challenging the action of the Orissa State Financial Corpora¬tion (in short, “O.S.F.C.”) under Section 29 of the State Finan¬cial Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on the ground that the assets of the unit has been valued at a very low price taking the said decision in a hasty manner, the peti¬tioner has filed two writ petitions praying for a direction to the opposite parties to return possession of the Unit to the original owner as the same has been seized without following due procedure.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The petitioner-Unit is an Alloy Plant situated within the State of Orissa. It was built up being encouraged by the boom in the industrial sector in the State and as the demand for alloy was increasing day by day. Initially, the Unit approached the O.S.F.C. for financial assistance. After making due investigation and enquiry, the O.S.F.C. sanctioned loan of Rs.45,35,000/- to the petitioner-Unit. The petitioner-Unit was framed as a public limited company named and styled as Orissa Alloys Limited. A sum of Rs.27,14,400/- was disbursed in favour of the petitioner-Unit initially out of the sanctioned loan in the year 1990. The bal¬ance additional term loan of Rs.16,20,600/- was sanctioned at a very late stage. Out of the loan sanctioned, the O.S.F.C. also deducted 10% towards commitment charges. After the Unit started production, payments were made by the petitioner regularly to the O.S.F.C. The Unit sustained heavy loss in the year 1998 which resulted in irregularity in making payment to the O.S.F.C. At that time, the O.S.F.C. came up with the O.T.S. proposal and the petitioner-Unit immediately wanted to avail the said offer and wrote a letter dated 26.11.1998 for settling their dues under the O.T.S. Scheme. The initial deposit for consideration of the O.T.S. Scheme was fixed at Rs.50,000/- and the same amount was deposited by the petitioner-Unit on 9.2.1999. In the super-cy¬clone of the year 1999, the petitioner-Unit was severely damaged. Since there was no insurance coverage, no compensation was made available to the petitioner-Unit. The loss of the Unit was as¬sessed at Rs.35,00,000/- and the Small Industries Development Bank of India (In short, “SIDBI”) agreed to fund the company for renovation work. However, the OSFC with an ulterior motive esti¬mated the damages to the tune of Rs.9,90,000/- and the entire amount was adjusted towards the outstanding dues of the Company and nothing was disbursed for renovation of the Unit. Though the main objective of the SIDBI was to help the industry revive itself and start payment, the O.S.F.C. was more interested in adjusting their dues rather than allowing a Unit to revive. Despite the loss sustained by the Unit in the super-cyclone, it tried to reconcile the account. The Unit on 9.9.2002 informed the O.S.F.C. to charge simple rate of interest and deduct the inter¬est levied on account of subsidy and disburse the balance amount. It may be noted here that irregular power supply was one of the reasons of sickness of the Unit. As the O.S.F.C. did not take any step, the petitioner-Unit again ventilated its grievance and in the year 2003 submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement under the O.T.S. Scheme 2000. As per the said Scheme, simple interest will be charged on the defaulted amount. However, on the con¬trary, the opposite parties in complete violation of the Scheme went on charging compound interest. The O.S.F.C. rejected the said proposal on 9.12.2003. Again the petitioner-Unit made corre¬spondences to the O.S.F.C. regarding adjustment of a sum of Rs.9,90,000/-, which was sanctioned towards super-cyclone loan for initial deposit under the O.T.S. Scheme and for allowing the Unit’s proposal under the said Scheme which was rejected. There¬after