- (1.) The challenge in the instant petition is order dated 12.9.21994 (P-1) passed by PSIDC-respondent No. 1. Another order dated 22.11.2002 (P-6) is also made subject of challenge. According to the Memorandum of Understanding (P-1), the proposal has been submitted by the petitioners to the Corporation for setting up of Open End Spinning Unit in Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur in the State of Punjab and subject to various conditions the parties have signed the Memorandum of Understanding. There can hardly be any challenge to the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding because no base is laid down in the petition to challenge the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding. The other order dated 10.12.2002 has been passed in pursuance of order dated 12.5.2011 (R-2).
(2.) The Managing Director exercising power under Section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for brevity 'Act') has worked out the amount of recovery vide order dated 12.5.2011 (R-2) and being specified authority has issued a recovery certificate for recovery of the amount due vide order dated 12.5.2011 (R-2). The aforesaid order was passed after issuing notice and the petitioners have appeared through one Sh. Raj Kumar and thereafter through Sh. Yogesh and Sh. Indresh Goyal, Advocates, who filed their power of attorney. On 12.5.2011 no one appeared before the Managing Director and accordingly order was passed. The order has attained finality and consequently recovery certificate has been issued.
(3.) Mr. Sandeep Kotla, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the plea that the Managing Director of the PSIDC could not have exercised power under Section 32-G of the Act because he would become Judge in his own cause. However, the aforesaid argument would not be acceptable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand, 2004 11 SCC 625. The aforesaid view has been repeatedly followed by this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others,2008 1 PunLR 283 and in the case of Prem Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2008 AIR(P&H) 33. Insofar as the argument concerning period of limitation there is no foundation laid down and it has not been even pressed seriously. Even otherwise it is covered against the petitioners by the Division Bench judgment rendered in Prem Kumar's (case) supra. Accordingly the petition fails and the same is dismissed.;