G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for issuance of certain directions to the U. P. Financial Corporation.
(2.) The case set up in the writ petition is that petitioner No.1 is a firm which was constituted for carrying on business of manufacturing cycle spokes. The petitioners approached the U. P. Financial Corporation (for short UPFC) for loan and an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was sanctioned on 24-7-1993 and an additional amount of Rs.3.80 lakhs was sanctioned on 31-3-1996. The manufacturing unit of the petitioners was closed in 1997. The petitioners made a request to the UPFC to re-schedule the loan and the said request was accepted and the loan was re-scheduled on 20-4-2000. Sometime thereafter on 24-9-2001 the petitioners made a proposal to the respondents for one-time settlement whereunder they offered to deposit the balance of the principal amount plus 10 per cent of the outstanding simple interest. The petitioners also deposited Rs. 1.80 lakhs through a demand draft which represented 10 per cent of the total outstanding dues as per the settlement offered by them. The respondents sent a reply dated 10-10-2000 that one-time settlement can be considered on full liability basis and not on the terms proposed by the petitioners. The respondents also sent a letter dated 24-10-2001 asking the petitioners to participate in the meeting of the core group for finalising the terms of the proposal of one-time settlement. In the meeting convened for the purpose, the General Manager of the UPFC informed the petitioners that the proposal of one-time settlement could not be accepted on the terms offered by them. The case of the petitioners further is that their proposal was on the same terms in which one-time settlement had been accepted in the case of M/s. D. B. Ice Factory and Cold Storage, and by rejecting their proposal they have been discriminated against. The principal reliefs claimed in the writ petition are that the order dated 10-10-2001 passed by the respondents be quashed, a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent to produce the entire record of M/s. D. B. Ice Factory and Cold Storage, and, the UPFC be commanded to enter into one-time settlement with the petitioners on the same terms and conditions as was done in the case of the aforesaid unit. A further prayer has been made that a writ of prohibition be issued for restraining the respondents from initiating any recovery proceedings against the petitioners.
(3.) Sri Manish Goyal has submitted that after the loan had been sanctioned and money had been disbursed to the petitioners, they had commenced production but on account of recession in the market the unit was closed in the year 1997. The petitioners have been making necessary efforts to repay the loan amount by making deposits from time to time. The request for reschedulement of loan was accepted by the respondents on 20-4-2000, but on account of closure of business the petitioner were finding it difficult to deposit the instalments as fixed in the re-scheduled plan and, therefore, they made a request on 24-9-2001 to the respondents to enter into one-time settlement. The terms and conditions of the one-time settlement proposed by the petitioners were similar to that which had been accepted by the respondents in the case of M/s. D. B. Ice Factory and Cold Storage, learned Counsel has submitted that the respondents having entered into one-time settlement with M/s. D. B. Ice Factory and Cold Storage on the same terms and conditions as was proposed by the petitioners, they committed manifest illegality by not accepting the proposal made by the petitioners and the impugned order passed on 10-10-2001 rejecting the proposal is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.;