- (1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which the following reliefs have been prayed for:- (a) directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 30-11-1992 and 17-3-1993 (Annexures Nos. III and IV) as also the representation of Sri Surendra Singh dated 17-3-1993 (Annexure V) respectively in accordance with the judgment/ guidelines of the Supreme Court referred to above. (b) directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment referred to above. (c) granting any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) awarding the costs of the writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm. Sri Swatantra Kumar Agarwal is its partner. It has established a rice mill by investing Rs. 6.55 lacs from its own resources. The U. P. Financial Corporation, respondent No. 2 advanced a loan of about Rs. 7.29 lacs against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 8.68 lacs. Due to the failure of the respondents in not timely providing and sanctioning the loan, the petitioner could not make a steady progress and suffered huge loss. It became a sick unit, for declaration of which an application is pending. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier, an order dated 23-4-1992 (Annexure 1) was passed directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's application for declaring the unit as a sick unit. Accordingly the petitioner submitted an application/representation along with this Court's order to the respondents well within time. That was decided by the respondents vide order dated 12-11-1992, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that this decision is not in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra's case nor in accordance with the directions given by this Court. on 30-11-1992 the petitioner again approached the respondents to reconsider the decision and decide the representation promptly. The petitioner made some additional offers also on its behalf vide its subsequent representation dated 30-11-1992, Annexure 3 to the petition. The same point was reiterated in the subsequent representation dated 17-3-1992. Nay, a writ petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner with the following prayers :- (1) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-11-1992 (Annexure 11) passed by the respondent No. 3 in that petition. (2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the application of the petitioner for declaring unit as sick unit in view of the High Court's order dated 23-4-1992 (Annexure 10 of writ petition). (3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3, to refrain from selling the said unit until the disposal of the case of the petitioner before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for declaring the said unit of the petitioner as sick unit. (4)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for one time settlement. (5)Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and (6) Award costs to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed on 23-3-1993 by this Court after hearing the petitioner at stretch at the stage of admission in these words:- "Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of S. 29 of the U. P. Financial Corporations Act for recovering the amount which was advanced to the petitioner. There is nolegal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed." The petitioner reiterates that the representation has not been decided by the respondents in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1313. The main thrust of the petition is that the directions given in the aforesaid case were not followed by the respondents while deciding the representation. Therefore, this petition has been filed to ensure that the respondents follow the guidelines contained in the said judgment and reliefs supra have been claimed in this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents have put in appearance. At the stage of admission itself, parties' learned counsel have been heard. The main objection raised from the side of the respondents is two fold :- (1) Rule 7 of Chapter 22 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which runs as under, does not permit the second petition by the petitioner: "7. Where an application has been rejected it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts." and (2) Principles of res judicata and O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. come in the way of the petitioner.;