- (1.) Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner for the similar relief against the RFC, therefore, they are being decided together.
(2.) As stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner firm was registered as Small Scale Industry for the manufacturing of Washing Machine, Cooler Kits etc. The petitioner had moved before respondent RFC for sanctioning the loan of Rs. 5 lacks in respect of Industrial project and ultimately vide Annexure 4, total loan of Rs. 3, 90,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent. There was some defaults on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to be as "Act of 1951") for payment of the amount as mentioned in Annexure 5. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner for taking a lenient view in regard to payment vide the letter Annexure 6. However, the respondent Corporation proceeded to take possession of the fixed assets including the land, plant and machineries on 2-3-1995 and subsequently on 25-9-1995, the respondent Corporation invited tenders regarding the sale of building, plant and mchinery, one of copy of notice dated 25-9-1995 is attached as Annexure 7. It is stated by the petitioner that notice itself shows that maximum offer which had been received by the respondent was Rs. 3.5 lacks. The auction of the unit was scheduled to be held on 18-10-1995 as per notice Annexure 7. It is stated that notice was vague as on one hand, in the same advertisement, auction was announced and on the other hand, teachers were invited as is clear from clause (d) of the advertisement and it was also mentioned that negotiations will take place with the tenderers. It is submitted that except in the news-papers, notice of auction was not published in any other papers; with the result that there was not wide publicity done, the bidders could not take part in the auction and then auction was put-off. The petitioner had taken an objection that value of unit was not less than Rs. 5.50 lacks at that time and the cost of Machines and Electric fitting was over and above of that. The objection taken by the petitioner was dated 15-10-1995, attached as Annexure 9 and registered receipt is marked as Annexure 10. The writ petition was filed on the ground that respondent was making secret deal with certain persons for disposal of the property in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. It was submitted that respondent had published the advertisement for the proposed auction only in one news-paper i.e. in "Rajasthan Patrika" and that too in Bikaner addition only and there was no wide publicity at all. It is alleged that land and building in question as advertisement were valued Rs. 5.50 lacks and the valuation of machinery was about Rs. 7 lacks. Prayer was made to restrain the respondent for holding the auction.
(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, another writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 232/96 was filed with the additional fact that petitioner had requested the respondent to adjust the subsidy due to the petitioner of Rs. 43,000/- towards the loan. After the scheduled auction on 18-10-1995, when no bidders had attended the auction, another auction was held on 5-12-1995 and a bid of total amount of Rs. 3.60 lacks as highest bid was received. It is alleged that as a matter of fact there was no auction held on 5-12-1995 and there was no publicity in the news-paper as required under the law. It has been stated by the petitioner that as a matter of fact respondent Ved Prakash was being handed over the property by way of private negotiations as Shri Ved Prakash had a clout with officers of respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that auction held for Rs.3.61 lacks is wholly illegal for the reason that no proper publicity was made and even rules were violated. It is alleged that action was being taken against the petitioner with mischievous motive only to hand over the property to respondent Ved Prakash.;