PRADEEP TYAGI Vs. DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the action of the respondent no.1 Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) of having got issued, in exercise of powers under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations (SFC) Act, 1951, to the respondent no.3 Collector, Ghaziabad, a certificate for recovery as arrears of land revenue, the dues of '16,47,320/- owed by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 DFC; the petition further seeks to restrain the respondents from, in pursuance to the said certificate, causing arrest of the petitioner. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 11 th April, 2008 which continues to be in force, arrest of the petitioner was stayed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 DFC had in August, 1996 sanctioned a loan of '10 lacs in favour of the petitioner; however only a sum of '9,31,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner; that even though the petitioner had by October, 1998 re-paid a sum of '4,20,212/- to the respondent no.1 DFC but the loan was illegally re-called vide notice dated 25th September, 1998 and the balance amount then due of '8,48,201/- demanded from the petitioner; that the action of the respondent no.1 DFC was illegal in as much as the entire sanctioned loan also had not been disbursed to the petitioner causing loss to the petitioner; that in November, 1999 the respondent no.1 DFC issued notice under Section 29 of the SFC Act then demanding a sum of '9,13,303.10 from the petitioner; that the petitioner thereafter issued four cheques in favour of the respondent no.1 DFC but of which only two were presented and the remaining two not even presented; that the petitioner owing to ill health and bad phase in business could not re-pay the entire amount; that in February, 2001 another notice under Section 29 of the SFC Act was issued then demanding a sum of '4,78,000/- from the petitioner; that the petitioner deposited a further sum of '2,04,000/- with the respondent no.1 DFC but could not pay the balance amount owing to closure of his business premises under directions of the Supreme Court on account of a "non-conforming user"; that the petitioner thereafter shifted his business to Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh but remained unable to re-pay the entire amount due to the respondent no.1 DFC; that the respondent no.1 DFC thereafter in April, 2002 issued notice under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; that owing to failure of the efforts of the petitioner to revive his unit, he could not re-pay the amount due to the respondent no.1 DFC; though the petitioner applied under the OTS Proposal scheme but the same was not accepted; that in March, 2007 the respondent no.1 DFC filed an application under Section 32G of the SFC Act before the Competent Authority (respondent no.2) for issuance of Recovery Certificate for an amount of '16,47,320/- without disclosing as to how the said amount was due; that the Competent Authority issued notice dated 30 th May, 2007 to the petitioner of the said application of the respondent no.1 DFC; that the petitioner filed his reply before the Competent Authority but the Competent Authority nevertheless issued Recovery Certificate for '16,47,320/- and since the petitioner was residing at Ghaziabad, forwarded the same to the respondent no.3 Collector, Ghaziabad for implementation. The petitioner impugns the said action by contending:-

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on:-