P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.)This is an application by the petitioner company Tangail Textile Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union of India, the Chief Administrator, Rehabilitation Finance Administration, the Rehabilitation Finance Administration and the Certificate Officers of Districts Nadia and 24-Parganas of this State. The Rule is directed against the order to proceed against the petitioner under the Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of a loan of Rs. 80,000/-. In fact two Certificates have been filed in this case for the total sum of Rs. 203401.62 nP. by the Union of India through the Rehabilitation Finance Administration with the Certificate Officer of Nadia as well as the Certificate Officer of 24-Parganas at Alipore and the Certificate has been filed against the guarantors of the Company, viz, (1) Aravinda Ghosh, (2) Kulundu Chandra Roy and (3) Satitosh Chandra De Talukdar. These two certificates are dated 26th December, 1959 and 20th June, 1959. They appear as annexures to the petition.
(2.)The petitioner Company was promoted by displaced persons from East Pakistan and is running a Powerloom Factory at Fulia Rehabilitation Colony in the district of Nadia. The Factory was initially started with a loan of Rs. 40,000/- granted by the Rehabilitation Finance Administration on two mortgage deeds executed between the petitioner Company and the respondent Administration on the 27th August, 1952. Then the petitioner Company took a further loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the respondent Administration through another agreement dated the 10th February, 1954. There was a Supplementary deed of Mortgage dated the 26th November, 1956, incorporating the second loan of Rs. 40,000/-. It appears that the petitioner Company continued to make applications for further loans. As it appears from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition itself the petitioner Company after getting the licence applied for a farther loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent Administration on or about the 20th April, 1955. The petitioner Company on the 30th April, 1955 and nth May, 1955 made further application to the respondent Administration for a further loan of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The respondent Administration on. of about 13th June 1955 turned down and rejected the petitioner's application for the loan of Rs. 7,00,000/-.
(3.)It is not necessary, having regard to the actual point raised and argued before me to refer to the. details, of the correspondence and requests for further, loans mentioned in the petition. All that is necessary now to say is that the respondent Administration pressed the petitioner Company for repayment of the earlier dues, of Rs. 80,000/-. By a letter dated 22nd December, 1958 the respondent Administration represented to the petitioner Company complaining that its representative was not allowed inspection of the account books of the petitioner company; that the proposal for the sake of the surplus machinery of the concern also had not been submitted; and that arrears of instalments stood at Rs. 56,143.62 nP. and another instalment of Rs. 15,115/- would fall due on 1st January, 1959 bringing the total dues to Rs. 71,257.62 nP. In that letter it was clearly stated that if the petitioner company did not come, to any amicable settlement and produce the accounts for inspection by the end of the month, the entire loan would be recalled and the case referred to the Collector to realise the entire amount as arrears of land revenue.