- (1.) The order dated 23.5.14 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No.3, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking production of documents under Section 25 of the Rajasthan public Demand Recovery Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1952'), has been challenged by the petitioner by means of present petition.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the State Government through the respondent No.2-The Director, Rajasthan State Insurance & General Provident Fund Department, Jaipur had extended a group medical insurance policy known as 'Saras Samuhik Beema Yojana Phase-III' (hereinafter referred to as 'the said policy'), covering the insurance of milk producers of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation. The respondent No.2 therefore had entered into a coinsurance agreement (MOU) with the petitioner for the period from 15.7.08 to 14.7.09 (Annex.3). As per the provisions of the said MOU, in case of any claims and expenditure, the liability of the petitioner was fixed to the extent of 90%. It was also provided in the said MOU that the respondent No.2 would have the right to settle the claims arising under the policy. Accordingly, the liabilities as and when arose, were to be remitted by the petitioner in its proportionate share. It appears that the dispute arose between the parties as the petitioner company failed to remit its share to the respondent No.2 as per the terms of the MOU, though the respondents had made 100% payments towards the claims made by the insured persons.
(3.) The respondents therefore initiated the proceedings under the Act of 1952 for the recovery of the said amount by sending the requisite requisition to the District Collector i.e. the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after having been satisfied that the demand was recoverable under the Act, issued the certificate as contemplated under Section 4, and also issued the notice under Section 6 of the said Act to the petitioner company. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent No.3 under Section 8 of the said Act, denying the liability and contending interalia that the demand was not recoverable under the said Act. Thereafter, pending the said petition, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 25 of the said Act seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to produce three categories of documents, to which the respondent No.2 filed the reply. The respondent No.3 dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.5.14 which has been challenged by the petitioner, by way of present petition. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing the reply.;