N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash auction notice dt. 28-11 -94 (Anx. 5) and prays that the possession of the industry in question may be given to the petitioner. It has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to make re schedulement and deferment/postponement of the loan first without adjusting the sanctioned loan of second unit against the unit first in the light of the decision of this Court vide order dt. 4-10-93.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that it was granted a loan of Rs. 30,000/- by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Corporation) in the year 1981 for establishing a small scale industry for hand loom work against which the petitioner paid Rs. 1000/- only, as his industry could not run for want of raw material. It is alleged that thereafter in the year 1984, the petitioner applied for loan for establishing a automatic niwar (cotton niwar) power loom for which a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was sanctioned by the respondent Corporation but nothing was paid to the petitioner. It is also alleged that on 25-10-1989 an agreement of loan was executed between the parties. The petitioner has alleged that a sum of Rs. 64,250/- has been paid and for remaining loan amount when he approached the respondents, he was informed that loan of Rs. 2 lacs has been adjusted against the loan given to him in the year 1981 for first unit. under section 29 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, a notice was issued to the petitioner dt. 29-8-92 calling upon him to pay dues upto 30-9-92, failing which possession of assets of the petitioner would be taken over. Being aggrieved with the said notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court bearing No. 136/93 (M/s. S. R. Industry v. R.F.S.) praying that due instalments against the sanctioned loan may be paid to the petitioner and that loan amount against the first unit may not be adjusted against the instalments of sanctioned loan of second unit. This court disposed of the writ petition vide order dt. 4-10-93 in the following terms:- "In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated August 23, 1993 with the modification that the petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/-on or before November 21,1993. On depositing of Rs. 40,000/-, the possession of the factory shall be delivered to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner shall continue to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 7,000/- P.M. till the loan is cleared. If petitioner fails to make payments of three consecutive instalments, then the respondents shall be free to take such action as are permissible under law. On deposit of Rs. 40,000/-, the impugned notice under S. 29 shall stand cancelled. So far as reliefs No. (b) and (c) are concerned, the aforesaid order shall not preclude the respondents from considering the petitioner's application for waiver of the penal interest if the conditions so warrant and so far as the relief regarding the adjustment of loan granted to other unit is concerned, in terms of the aforesaid order, the loan granted to the Unit-I, may not be adjusted against the sanctioned loan of Unit-ll. There will be no order as to costs." Thereafter according to the petitioner, he has deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 20-11-93 and also moved a representation but no re schedulement or deferment was made. The petitioner has also alleged that he has deposited Rs. 7,000/-. on 5-12-1994 a notice dt. 28-11-94 was received by the petitioner wherein it was stated that the petitioner's unit has been scheduled to be auctioned on 15-12-1994 dt. 11.00 a.m. Dissatisfied with the letter/notice of auction, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 14-12-1994.
(3.) On 5-12-1994, this Court ordered that the auction proceedings may be held but the sale be not finalised provided the petitioner deposits Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). On 16-1-1995, the ad interim order continued provided the petitioner further deposits Rs. 30,000/-. This Court on 20-2-1995 directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount by 28-2-1995. Pleadings are complete and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.;