Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE present case is a sad story, perhaps, which if repeated will discourage trade and industry to generate their economics with the assistance of State public finance institutions. There is no issue on facts, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in its relation with the U.P. Financial Corporation, the Respondent No. 1. In this case malafides have been alleged against the Regional Manager of the U.P. Financial Corporation, Respondent No. 2, arrayed as such by name. This respondent has not answered the allegations against him though given the opportunity to do so. This aspect is very important as the allegations made against Mr. D.K. Mahle have not been made for the first time in the writ petition. The allegations against this respondent on the manner in which the certain negotiations were conducted was given as a written complaint by the petitioner, Messrs, M.V. Industries, through its Proprietor, Sri Mahendra Kumar Bhartiya. On 29 August, 1986, Sri Mahendra Kumar Bhartiya made a complaint that while he is being pressurised with the threat of recoveries of loans against him, simultaneously, the officials of the U.P. Financial Corporation were active but 'dishonest' and 'private' negotiations were being made with one Ajai Bansal of Chippi Tola, Agra, by arranging sale of the petitioner -firms unit, privately. It was alleged in this representation that instead of all this surreptitious activity, the petitioner firm should have been given an opportunity to clear the pending loans.
(2.) THE Court has heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Goyal, counsel for U.P. Financial Corporation respondent No. 1, Mr. Rajiv Mishra and counsel for the respondent No. 3, Messrs Bansal Industries, Mr. Sunit Kumar holding the brief of Mr. U.N. Sharma. On behalf of respondent No. 2, Mr. D.K. Mahle, neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor any one has appeared. A notice was given to the petitioner firm dated 21 August 1986 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). This was a notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, by which it was announced to the petitioner firm that within 15 days of the receipt of the notice the outstanding loans, the principal, interest and expenses amounting to Rs. 9,13,413 -04 should be cleared. The petitioner firm was put under caution that if it fails to make payment of the aforesaid amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the corporation would exercise its power under Section 29 and proceed with consequential action by taking possession of the unit as also assigning it to another person on sale or otherwise. The notice of 21 August, 1986, inevitably, must have been received after that date. The petitioner firm contends that it was received on 25 August 1986. This aspect is not denied by the U.P. Financial Corporation in its counter affidavit. Leaving the first day of the notice, even if 15 days are to be added by arithmetic, it would come to a close on 10 September or 11 September, 1986. This aspect also has not been controverted in the counter affidavit that the U.P. Financial Corporation by its notice gave an opportunity the petitioner -firm until 10 September or 11 September, 1986 to respond to the notice.
(3.) IN his complaint to the Managing Director of the U.P. Financial Corporation, dated 29 August 1986, while the petitioner firm was under notice, and this aspect is very crucial, allegations were made against the Regional Manager, Mr. D.K. Mahle, otherwise, the Recovery Officer, Agra Office. It was alleged by the petitioner the he was "playing a very cunning, dishonest game in respect of take over and transfer of the said property", that the petitioner had learnt "through utmost reliable sources that they have privately negotiated with interested parties to obtain low price offer "and" to recommend and arrange for acceptance of the same and in return to receive underhand money in huge amount." In the petitioner firm's complaint the party who was attempting to negotiate with Mr. D.K. Mahle, Regional Manager and Recovery Officer was named as Ajay Bansal from Chippi Tola, Agra, who also happened to be a marble goods dealer. The petitioner firm informed the Managing Director of the U.P. Financial Corporation that the property carried a value of Rs. 25 lacs and that the U.P. Financial Corporation may verify this aspect. It was asserted that the attempt to sell it, while the petitioner firm is under notice, needs "probe into the matter immediately to prevent corruption on the part of the aforesaid gentleman and impart justice to us." The U.P. Financial Corporation was cautioned that in case of any injustice and loss that may be sustained by you in this process. The corporation shall be held fully responsible to make good." In this complaint, the petitioner firm also made a request that the loan may be rescheduled and the compound interest may be waived off. The petitioner firm made a request that a reasonable time of one year may be granted to make repayment of the loans to the Corporation either by putting the factory into production or by sale of the assets. In effect, the petitioner firm was seeking permission that if ultimately it comes down that the unit has to be sold then the petitioner may be given the liberty to arrange for this exercise to raise funds and clear the dues.;