PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BY this petition the petitioner who is an industrial enterprauner has claimed the following reliefs: PRAYERs "i/a" it be declared that modified Agreement dated 12. 03. 92 (Annex. 4) is illegal and the same be quashed; " I/b" In the alternative and without prejudice it is submitted that it be declared that Respondents are not entitled to charge revised rate of interest of 18. 75% p. a. from the petitioner on the entire loan disbursed to him. " I/c" Alternatively and without prejudice if it is found that petitioner is not entitled to aforesaid reliefs then it be declared that Respondents can charge increased rate of interest @ 18. 75% p. a. only of the third instalment and not on the 1st and 2nd instalments. " I/d" the amount realised from the petitioner in excess of the amount payable by calculating interest @ 14. 5% may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 18% p. a. "
(2.) PRAYER I/a relates to the claim of declaration that the modified agreement dated 12. 3. 92 is illegal. An agreement is a contract intra-parties voluntarily entered into by two parties and a declaration is sought that such an agreement is illegal. Prayer I/b claims declaration that the respondent Finance Corporation is not entitled to charge revised rate of interest on the loan given to the petitioner. The liability to pay interest at an enhanced rate or on a different rate for loan taken under a valid legal agreement is questioned. By Prayer I/c declaration is claimed that Finance Corporation can charge increased rate of interest only on the third instalment and not the first two. The liability to pay interest on all the three instalments or only on one instalment is questioned. The liability having arisen out of contract. Prayer I/d claims a refund of interest realised from the petitioner in excess of the amount payable. It will be seen that the petitioner claims that interest be calculated @ 14. 5% on the loan advanced to him he desires that it be reassertained or determined and thus claims refund on which claims payment of interest @ 18% p. a. The liability to pay interest at a particular rate flows out of the contract of financing entered into two between the petitioner and the Corporation. It is pertinent to note that Rajasthan Finance Corporation is statutory body established by the Govt. of Rajasthan under the State Finance Corporations Act 1956 for the purpose of providing finance for industrial development and upliftment in the State of Rajasthan. Various schemes are floated by the Corporation and financing of industries is undertaken by the Corporation in several fields and aspects. It is the petitioner, who approached the Finance Corporation for grant of certain loans and consciously agreed to the terms on which such advance will be made to him. He was not enticed into the contract by the Corporation nor was he coerced to enter into the contract, it is a purely voluntary act on the part of the petitioner. He has consciously accept the rate interest. The conditions in which they can be changed the manner of payment of interest on the local advance, etc. is also voluntarily accepted by the petitioner the conditions imposed on him by the contract as also by the Finance Corporation Act, 1956 statutorily through out the transactions the contract of the petitioner has been voluntary, he has not been coerced into any agreement, he has voluntarily taken the liability flowing out of the contract of the financing and is now seeking by this writ certain declarations and injunctions against the Corporation as will be seen from prayers quoted above. The petitioner infact desires enforcement of his contractual rights and claims declaration that certain contractual liability cannot visit him, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He can efficaciously claim all these reliefs by filing civil suit for declaration of the kind claimed by him in the prayers mentioned above. Seeking injunctions for enforcement of certain terms of contract as desired by him where he will have the opportunity, wherever necessary, to lead adequate evidence to prove his contentions. Yet the writ petition is filed and it is insisted that it must be entertained.
(3.) I have been at pains to observe regarding such existence of alternate remedy and entertaining of a writ petition inspite of efficacious alternative remedy being available. Unfortunately the judgments delivered by me are ignored, probably, deliberately. Separately today again, several decisions were pointed out to me and it was claimed that the writ petition is maintainable. It was then claimed that a writ in such circumstances must be entertained as a matter of course alternative remedy must be ignored and I am again compel to write this judgment again asserting necessity of following alternate remedy. I am well aware of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that normally a writ petition should not be entertained directly. It is also observed that alternate remedy is no bar to exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as the powers conferred on this court by that Article are plenary in nature, and are meant to be exercised to undo injustice or do positive justice as efficaciously as possible. I will again examine the decisions relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Style (Dressland) vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that judicial review of arbitrary exercise of discretionary power is permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question of enhancement of rent by the Union Territory of Chandigarh. I have carefully gone through the decision. This judgment nowhere deals with the question as to whether a writ petition for enforcement of contractual matter must be entertained directly by the High Court even though alternate remedy by way of civil suit is available. Assuming that the Rajasthan Finance Corporation is acting arbitrarily in claiming enhanced interest from the petitioner, inspite of circulars passed by the controlling authorities and that action being arbitrary is amenable to judicial review the question is whether the judicial review must be undertaken only by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner need not to go to civil court which also has the power to strike down an arbitrary action or an arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. The civil court also has the power to issue necessary injunctions to prevent any injury being caused to the fiscal interests of the plaintiff. The petitioner can claim such relief from civil court. No reasons are stated nor were any canvass before me in the Court as to what injury would be caused to the petitioner by going to civil court instead of rushing to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ;