Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondents to given deemed adjustment of the subsidy to which the petitioners are entitled to and further prohibiting the Punjab Financial Corporation from taking any action under Sec. 13(4) of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act') and further for quashing of Annexure P -12 whereby the respondent -Corporation has raised a demand under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. It was stated that as the petitioners -Company was a Sick Industrial Company and was registered with BIFR, therefore, no action can be taken under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act against them.
(2.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners decided to set up a Milk Processing Plant and purchased land measuring 3 Bighas 7 Biswas in the year 1999. The petitioners -Company approached the respondent -Corporation for grant of loan and the term loan of Rs. 90 lacs was sanctioned out of which a sum of Rs. 80.92 lacs was disbursed. The petitioners -Company came into production on 5.5.2000. It is further averred in the writ petition that unit of the petitioners was entitled to capital subsidy and a sum of Rs. 39.38 lacs was sanctioned as subsidy on 31.10.2000 by the Govt, of Punjab. However, the said subsidy was sanctioned subject to the condition that the same will be released as per seniority except priority categories declared by the Government from time to time provided the unit was found in a working condition/in operation at the time of such disbursement. The petitioners failed to comply with the terms and conditions entered into with the respondent -Corporation and made default in repayment of installments and interest etc. The respondent -Corporation through its letter dated 6/10.1.2005 informed the petitioners -Company to clear the total default amount of Rs. 48.98 lacs before 25.1.2005 failing which the Corporation shall proceed against it under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In the meantime, the petitioners -Company approached the BIFR by way of reference which was registered vide No. 12/2006. However, vide order dated 30.10.2006 BIFR rejected the reference holding that the petitioners -Company did not fulfil the criteria for declaring it as a Sick industrial Company. The respondent -Corporation issued another letter/notice dated 1.12.2006 informing the petitioners -Company to clear the dues and in case of default, action under Sec. 29 of the state Financial Corporations Act, 1951 will be taken against it. It is the case of the petitioners -Company that a fresh reference on the basis of financial status of the company as on 31.3.2006 was registered with BIFR vide Case No. 1/2007. The respondent -Corporation issued a fresh demand notice dated 19.3.2007 under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation Act demanding a sum of Rs. 113.99 lacs from the petitioners -Company. The petitioners -Company sent reply/objections dated 17.5.2007. The petitioners -Company further alleges that it did not receive any reply from the respondent -Corporation as envisaged under Sec. 13(3)(a) of the Securitisation Act on these objections and the respondent -Corporation proceeded to take action under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act vide notice dated 15.1.2006 Annexure P -16. The petitioners -Company filed Securitisation Application under Sec. 17(1) of the Securitisation Act against the demand notice dated 27.7.2006 as well as demand notice dated 19.3.2007 and for quashing of Possession Notice dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P -16) on various grounds. The respondent -Corporation filed an affidavit dated 14.2.2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal -II, Chandigarh (for short the DRT) stating therein that no notice under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act has been issued to the petitioners -Company by the respondent -Corporation and therefore, it has no right to file an appeal under Sec. 17 of the Securitisation Act. The DRT vide its order dated 14.2.2008 held that in view of the stand taken by the Corporation to the effect that no measure has been taken under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. The Securitisation application filed by the petitioners -Company is not maintainable under Sec. 17(1) of the Securitisation act and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners -Company under Sec. 17(1) was dismissed. We have hard learned Counsel for the petitioners -Company and perused the record.
(3.) We find that the present writ petition is without any merit. Undisputedly, the respondent -Corporation has not taken any steps under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act against the petitioners -Company and therefore, the present writ petition filed by it for quashing of the demand notice is not maintainable being premature. The other prayer of the petitioners -Company with regard to the issuance of direction to adjust the capital subsidy as sanctioned to it vide Annexure P -5 against the loan amount of the respondent -Corporation, is not tenable. It is crystal clear from the letter Annexure P -5 that at the time of disbursement of the subsidy the unit of the petitioners was to be in a operative condition and the said subsidy was to be released on the basis of seniority. The counsel for the petitioners -Company has not averred in the writ petition that as per seniority the petitioners -Company are entitled to the release of subsidy sanctioned to it by the State Government. Even otherwise, the subsidy has been released by the State Government whereas the loan amount has been sanctioned by the respondent -Corporation which is totally an independent statutory authority. Even otherwise, the right to receive « the subsidy has not been crystallized so far and in view of these facts, the prayer made by the petitioners -Company for quashing of the demand notice is being dismissed being premature, we feel it not necessary to discuss the question whether in view of the reference pending before BIFR, the respondent -Corporation can resort to the provisions of Securitisation Act. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.;