B.J.Shethna,J. - (1.) "Whether the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'the RFC') being a disbursing authority is entitled to charge . interest on a subsidy amount for the period from payment of subsidy amount to the petitioner till the receipt of the same amount by it from the State Government ?" This important and identical question of law is arising in all these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by common order.
(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Vineet Kothari appearing on behalf of all the petitioners. In these petitions vehemently submitted that in absence of any provisions either under the Act or Rules, the respondent-RFC is not entitled to charge interest on a subsidy amount disbursed by it to the petitioners. He also submitted that mere undertaking given by the petitioners will not be sufficient for the respondent-RFC to claim interest on a subsidy amount when there is no such provisions under the law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vineet Kothari relied upon a judgment delivered by Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.V.S. Sugars v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.
(3.) However, learned counsel Mr. N.M. Lodha, Mr. Sangeet Lodha, Mr. R.P. Dave and Mr. S.G. Ojha appearing in different matters on behalf of the respondent-RFC vehemently submitted that the respondent-RFC was entitled to charge interest on a subsidy amount which was released by it in favour of the petitioners on an undertaking that till the amount is reimbursed from the State Government, the amount of interest will be borne by the petitioners and the same will be charged by the RFC. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent-RFC that this being a contractual matter, this Court should not entertain these petitions in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and it should relegate the petitioners to file a civil suit before competent civil court. In support of their submission, reliance has been placed on three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1977 SC 1772 , (2)AIR 1981 SC 1368 and(3) 1994(2) SCC (Suppl.) 108.;