- (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to settle the mortgage/ hypothecated assets of M/s. Mahalaxmi Chemical, tipudana, Ranchi in favour of the petitioner who is its original promoter as because the respondents have taken a decision vide memo No. 1159 dated 5-10-2001 to sell out the above firm in lieu of consideration amount fixed by the respondents themselves for other purchaser. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 6-11-2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that his request for the above mentioned settlement in his name has not been entertained by the respondents although the petitioner has offered the same consideration amount in which the respondents have decided to settle the firm in question in favour of other purchaser. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents to settle the above firm's assets in favour of the petitioner who is the original promoter and proprietor of the said firm which was taken over by the respondents in the year 1981 by virtue of a decision taken by them in the year 1979 and admittedly when the petitioner at present is agreeable to pay the same consideration amount which has been fixed by the respondents for the other purchasers. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents not to discriminate the petitioner from that of other purchaser. The petitioner further prays for a direction against the respondents restraining them from raising an illegal demand in case of petitioner only towards the sale of the unit namely Mahalaxmi Chemicals.
(2.) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under :-On 27-4-1981 the respondents issued an order taking possession of the petitioner's firm under Section 29 of the State Financial corporation Act since the petitioner failed to liquidate the outstanding dues of the corporation in terms of the agreement and the mortgaged assets of the petitioner was sold in favour of the private respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner they received a memo No. 1159 dated 5-10-2001 issued by respondent No. 2 vide which the petitioner came to know that his mortgaged/ hypotheticated assets have been approved for sale on the consideration amount of rs. 3,00,000/ -. The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he submitted his offer vide letter dated 10-10-2001 with regard to re-purchase of the said asset in question which was mechanically rejected vide letter dated 6-11-2001. That M/s. Maha Lakshmi Chemicals, tupudana was sanctioned a term loan of rs. 1. 54 lacs on 31-3-1976 to set up an industrial unit at Tupudana for manufacture of processed minerals under the proprietorship of Shri Raj Kumar Chitlangia. The petitioner availed the total sanction loan and implemented the unit in full and went into the production. That as per agreement executed by the petitioner the repayment of loan was to begin from June, 78 and the loan was required to be duly repaid along with interest and other charges by December, 87 and the petitioner did not choose to make payment of even a single farthing of the principal amount and as such the Advisory committee decided to take action under Sections 29 and 30 of the State Financial corporation Act for recovery of its dues. That in compliance of the decision of the advisory Committee, the loan was recalled by issuing legal notice under Section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the petitioner instead of making payment of the dues of the corporation requested the corporation for additional loan and rehabilitation package by claiming the unit as sick, moreover, there was no reason to establish the fact that the unit was sick and as such it was a lame excuse for non-payment of the dues. That the Corporation requested the petitioner several times to make payment of the outstanding dues but the petitioner did not choose to comply the same and as such the unit of the petitioner was taken over by the corporation in presence of the Magistrate on 10-8-1981 and the unit was advertised for sale. That the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1567 of 1981 (R) challenging notices issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 and 30 of the Bihar State Financial corporation Act which was dismissed. That it is stated that even after taking over of the assets, the petitioner was advised several times by the corporation to pay the dues of the Corporation, but the petitioner did not choose to comply the same and did not respond to it and ultimately the unit of the petitioner was advertised for auction sale and the same was auction sold on 5-10-2001 in favour of the respondent No. 4 and possession was duly given to the respondent no. 4 on initial payment as per the sale order.;