KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THE petititioner firm, of which Om Prakash is the Proprietor, applied for a loan of Rs. 1,35,000/ -for manufacturing plastic bangle rolls to the non -petitioner, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' here in after) and was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,27,000/ -. On March 19, 1981, the petitioner entered into an agreement for hypothecation with the Corporation. That, the factory was got ready for the purpose of production in, the month of September, 1981. The petitioner further made a demand of an additional loan for a sum of Rs. 73,000/ - out of which, Rs. 52.000/ - was sanctioned and the petitioner availed dispersement to the tune of Rs. 31,000/ - in the month of October 1982 The petitioner could not repay the loan and consequently notice under Section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' here in after) was issued by the Corporation. The application of the petitioner for rehabilitation was not considered. The Corporation failing to realise the amount proceeded under Section 29 of the Act and took -over the management of the factory.
(2.) IT caused grievance to the petitioner and be has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that notice Annexure -13 informing the petitioner about taking -over the assets under Section 29 of the Act and Annexure -14, the sale proclamation of the factory may be quashed and in accordance with the rehabilitating programme issued by the Industrial Development Bank of India the possession of the factory may be handed over to the petitioner and re -schedulement of that debt be made. The case of the petitioner is that despite best efforts the factory under went loss and therefore it was not possible for the petitioner to repay the loan. That, the Corporation had come to the help of other sick Industries by providing rehabilitation facility and in certain cases by re -schedulement of the debt.
(3.) THE constitutional validity, of Section 29 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner should first proceed under Section 31 of the Act.;