ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise issues which are interconnected hence all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in between the parties in Writ petition No. 29676 of 2013, which is being treated as leading writ petition. It is sufficient to refer the pleadings of the main writ petition for deciding all the four writ petitions.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these writ petitions now need to be noted. The petitioner is a registered company which claims to be running a small scale industry engaged in manufacturing of mild steel ingots. The petitioner was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 34,37,000/ from the U.P. Financial Corporation in the year 1995 and a loan of Rs. 33,15,000 from PICUP. Default having been committed by the petitioner in repayment of the loan, the U.P. Financial Corporation issued notice under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in pursuance of which possession of the unit was taken by the U.P. Financial Corporation on 27.8.1997. The petitioner incurred heavy loss due to financial recession. On 3.8.2001 the petitioner submitted an application to the Joint Director of Industries Saharanpur to declare the unit as a sick unit and to provide a rehabilitation package as contemplated by the Government Order dated 13.11.1995. On 27.9.2002 the Joint Director of Regional Rehabilitation Committee issued a sickness certificate to the petitioner. U.P. Financial Corporation being a primary lender was appointed as operating agency. Rehabilitation package as claimed by the petitioner was not being considered hence, a writ petition being writ petition No. 38735 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner, which writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 8.9.2005, directing Regional Rehabilitation Committee, Saharanpur Region to decide the petitioner's application for grant of rehabilitation package. On 9.6.2004, the State Government issued another Government Order providing scheme for rehabilitation package to sick industrial units by modifying the earlier Government Order dated 13.11.1995 issued on the subject. Initially, the U.P. Financial Corporation took the view that the unit is not viable. However, subsequently vide its report dated 8.8.2005, the U.P. Financial Corporation stated that rehabilitation of the unit is possible only when the unit agrees for one time settlement. Regional Rehabilitation Committee held its meting on 19.10.2005 and considered the petitioner's case in which it was resolved that on principal amount due from the date of unit being declared as sick, one time settlement be entered and the rate of interest be fixed less than 3% of the prime lending rate declared by the Reserve Bank of India. The Regional Rehabilitation Committee further resolved that the entire matter of the petitioner's unit be sent to the State Level Rehabilitation Committee and to the Commissioner and Director of Industries U.P. Kanpur for implementation of the proposal. After the approval of the rehabilitation package, the possession of plant and machinery including the land and shed was handed back by the U.P. Financial Corporation to the petitioner on 22.6.2007. On 26.2.2009, the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division wrote to the Managing Director U.P. Financial Corporation to implement the rehabilitation package in accordance with the Government Order dated 9.6.2004. Director of Industries also wrote to the U.P. Financial Corporation on 22.3.2010 to provide facilities to the petitioner's unit as per rehabilitation package prepared by the Regional Rehabilitation Committee. Details of rehabilitation package as were approved on 19.10.2005 were also indicated in the letter. On 26.3.2010 U.P. Financial Corporation wrote to the Joint Director of Industries Saharanpur Division that no one time settlement proposal below the matrix approved by the Board of Directors will be considered for approval. It was further mentioned that unit be asked to submit their one time settlement proposal as per new one time settlement guidelines of the U.P. Financial Corporation, if the unit wants to settle their accounts under the one time settlement.
(3.) AFTER issue of the letter dated 26.3.2010, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 23279 of 2010 praying for quashing the letter dated 26.3.2010 of U.P. Financial Corporation with further prayer of mandamus to comply the letters dated 9.2.2010/22.3.2010 issued by the Commissioner of the Division to implement the decision of the Regional Rehabilitation Committee. A mandamus was also sought to implement the approved rehabilitation package. The issue of rehabilitation package to the petitioner and certain other units was taken for consideration by the State level Inter Institutional Committee(SLIIC). The State level Inter Institutional Committee noted the stand of U.P. Financial Corporation that rehabilitation package as approved by the Regional Rehabilitation Committee cannot be accepted it having been recommended on an amount less than the approved matrix. The State level Inter Institutional Committee further noticed that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition in the High Court for implementation of approved rehabilitation package hence, the petitioner's matter being sub judice, the same is adjourned.;