LOKESHWAR SINGH PATNA, J. - (1.) THE above writ petitions have been filed seeking to strike down Section 3 of the H. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Amendment Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred "the Act"), being ultra vires the Constitution of India and to quash the demand notices issued by the managing director of the H. P. Financial Corporation (HPFC) and recovery notices by the Collectors of the Districts calling upon the petitioners to deposit the loan amount advanced to them and in default thereof, their movable and immovable property would be attached and recovery be effected as arrears of land revenue under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1978. These writ petitions have to be dealt with in common since they not only raised common questions of law but learned counsel appearing also have made common submissions subject to certain variations pertaining to the facts of the each case. The factual details necessary for appreciating the claims of the contesting parties are as follows : C. W. P. No. 375 of 1998. The petitioner, Jagjeet Singh, stood guarantor to one Sawant Singh who borrowed loan amounting to Rs. 1,73,000 for the purchase of truck in the year 1982 from the respondent financial corporation. The said Sawant Singh died on October 25, 1987, and before his death he had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,600 in the years 1983 to 1988. The petitioner alleged that the respondent corporation sold the mortgaged truck on March 31, 1988, for a sum of Rs. 97,500. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent corporation instead of taking any steps for recovering the outstanding loan from the legal heirs of the late Shri Sawant Singh, initiated proceedings against him under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) (Amendment) Act, 1982. The Collector District, Sirmour respondent No. 2 directed the Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, on March 3, 1997, to take steps for auctioning the land of the petitioner for recovery of loan amount and the petitioner was served with a notice dated August 29, 1997, vide which he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,91,352 before the Collector on or before September 15, 1997, failing which his land measuring 1 3 bighas situated in village Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib will be put to auction. The petitioner was served with another notice by the respondent Collector on May 21, 1998, marked annexure PA to the writ petition calling upon him to deposit the loan amount within a period of 15 days failing which the land would be put to auction and the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. C. W. P. No. 376 of 1998. The petitioner, Dile Ram, was advanced loan of Rs. 1,33,000 by the respondent corporation in the year 1987 for installation of steel and wooden steel industry in Tehsil Chhachyot, District Mandi. The petitioner mortgaged his 15 bighas of land in favour of respondent corporation, vide deed executed at the time of execution of the agreement. The petitioner alleged that till the year 1995 he has repaid the loan amount approximately to the extent of Rs. 60,000 and on January 9, 1993, a fire broke out in his industry as a result of which the industry building along with machinery tools, accessories and stocks, etc., were damaged and on account of the fire incident, the petitioner failed to make the instalments of the loan amount. The respondent corporation sent the case of the petitioner to the respondent Tehsildar (Recovery) under the Act for the recovery of Rs. 4,64,427 who initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner and attached his immovable property under the Land Revenue Act. C W. P. No. 533 of 1998. The petitioner, Megh Singh and Parkash Chand, stood guarantors for the loan of Rs. 2,04,000 advanced to one Gian Chand Minhas by the respondent corporation on March 17, 1983, for financing the purchase of a new TDB chassis, etc. The loan advanced to Gian Chand Minhas was payable in 20 quarterly instalments commencing from June 10, 1983, and the last instalment was to be paid on or before March 10, 1988. Gian Chand Minhas defaulted the payment of instalments and the respondent corporation filed a suit on July 21, 1990, for recovery of Rs. 4,47,732 which was got dismissed as withdrawn on December 19, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with notices dated October 1, 1997, issued by the Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala calling upon the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,22,230 and the said notices were issued by the respondent Tehsildar under the Act.
(2.) ON the premises of the abovestated facts, all the petitioners have prayed for striking down Section 3 of the Act being ultra vires the Constitution and to quash the notices issued by the authorities concerned. The written statement on behalf of the respondent corporation has been filed by Shri B.S. Thakur, Manager (Legal), of the corporation. The factual position averred by the petitioners is admitted by the respondent corporation. It is alleged that the loanees committed persistent default in repaying the loan dues of the corporation in accordance with the agreed schedule and despite legal notices issued to them the loanees failed to make the payment and the respondent corporation was left with no alternative but to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) (Amendment) Act, 1982. It is also stated that Section 24 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, stipulates the separate scheme and it does not correlate with the recovery action initiated by the respondent corporation against the petitioners for realisation of its loan dues from the defaulters and the action of the respondent corporation is legal, valid and constitutional to fulfil its statutory objectives, i.e., to boost the industrial growth of the State due to shortage of funds.
(3.) IN his supplementary affidavit filed by Shri B.R. Bhalaik, Under Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on behalf of respondent No. 3 in C. W. P. No. 375 of 1998, it was alleged that the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, was enacted under entry No. 43 of List I by Parliament and this Act provides procedure for recovery of dues from the defaulters by invoking Sections 29 and 31 of the Act. Section 46(b) expressly states that the provisions of that Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern. Thus, it is clear that the financial corporation may also resort to any other mode provided under any other law made by the State for the recovery of its dues from the defaulters and the H. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to "Act No. 22 of 1973"), which was amended by Act No. 10 of 1982 was enacted with the sole object to provide for the speedy recovery of certain classes of dues by the State on the subject contained in List II of the Seventh Schedule. It is also stated that the managing director of the respondent corporation is fully competent to send a certificate to the Collector mentioning the sum due from such defaulters and requesting that such sum together with the cost of the proceedings or other sum be recovered as arrears of land revenue.;