- (1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief(s): 1. For quashing the communication/order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondents declaring that the petitioner is not eligible for taking the benefits of one time settlement scheme (OTS Scheme) for liquidation of his debt.
(2.) For quashing the specific clause of the OTS Scheme under which the promoters/guarantors of the Unit against which sale order has been issued and auction for retention of the Unit as per the terms of the sale order, has not been taken by them, shall not be eligible for taking benefits of OTS Scheme.
(3.) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to issue the application form of OTS Scheme to the petitioner, so as to. enable the petitioner to avail the benefits of settling the dues under OTS Scheme. By introducing a further prayer through the amendment of the writ application, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 29.3.2007 issued by the respondents and for quashing the order dated 9.1.2009 containing the decision of the respondents to allot the assets of the petitioner to one M/s. RANTEC, R 1/3, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-13. 2. Issues which have been raised by the petitioner for consideration are : 1. Whether the petitioner is deemed to be in possession of hypothecated assets of M/s Hindustan Conduits and Pipes and if so, whether the benefits of the OTS Scheme can be denied to him? 2. Whether the impugned clause in the OTS Scheme, 2006 as stipulated by the respondents, amounts to unreasonable restriction, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and deprives the petitioner's right to apply for one time settlement of his dues payable to the respondents? 3. The undisputed facts of the case is that petitioner had obtained loan of Rs. 2,68,000/- from the. respondent BSFC in the year 1976- 77 under the Self Employment Scheme for the purpose of establishing a small scale industry. After about a year of functioning, the petitioner's Unit became sick and was later on declared as a sick Unit by the Bihar Industrial Technical Consultancy Corporation (BITC) in the year 1986. In absence of any financial help from any corner to revive and to rehabilitate the sick Unit, the petitioner could not pay off his debt to the respondent BSFC. In the year 1998, the respondent BSFC proceeded to take action against the petitioner under Sections 29 and 30 of the BSFC Act and had initiated steps to auction sale the assets of the petitioner's Unit namely, M/s. Hindustan Conduits and Pipes. The assets of the Unit were auction sold in the year 1998 to one M/s. Suchitra Agrawal of Calcutta on the basis of the asset valuation price, since the petitioner being the original promoter, could not manage to deposit the consideration money. An agreement for sale was executed in favour of M/s. Suchitra Agrawal and written instruments were executed together with corresponding agreement by which all the assets of M/s. Hindustan Conduits and Pipes were transferred by the respondent BSFC, unto the auction purchaser M/s. Suchitra Agrawal, on the date of agreement i.e. on 15.10.1998. However, the auction purchaser M/s. Suchitra Agrawal failed to pay off the balance amount of consideration / auction money to the BSFC and the debts payable to the BSFC could not be liquidated by her. Thereafter, the respondent BSFC put the Unit again on auction and one M/s. Pawan Kumar Arora and Sri Deepak Kumar Arora has deposited the tender money expressing interest to purchase the assets of M/s. Hindustan Conduits and Pipes. Such auction sale was put up only after informing M/s. Suchitra Agrawal and calling upon her to liquidate the assets and upon receipt of her reply that she was not intended in retaining the Unit and has no objection to the Unit being sold to M/s. Pawan Kumar Arora and Sri Deepak Kumar Arora. However, even the second auction bidder namely, M/s. Pawan Kumar Arora and Sri Deepak Kumar Arora did not deposit the balance of the consideration money. The auction sale of the assets of M/s. Hindustan Conduits and Pipes which was proposed to be auction sold to M/s. Pawan Kumar Arora and Sri Deepak Kumar Arora, was cancelled by the BSFC and thereafter the Unit was again offered by BSFC for auction sale and by the impugned notice and order dated 9.1.2009, the respondents have taken the, decision to allot the Unit to one M/s. RANTEC, R. 1/3, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-13., the auction bidder.;