U.P. CEMENT LTD. LKO.THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM- PRINCIPAL SECY.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by U.P. Cement Limited challenges the citation dated 1.10.2010 relating to the auction/sale of the movable and immovable property of the Petitioner, on the ground that in the Division Bench judgment passed in the earlier writ petition bearing No. 9080 (M/B) of 2007 in re: M/s R.D. Cement Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., connected with Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002 in re: U.P. Cement Ltd. v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 17.3.2010, directions have been issued for compliance while proceeding for auctioning the property of the Petitioner for making recovery of the dues as arrears of land revenue, but without compliance of the said directions, the impugned citation has been issued and, therefore, a fresh cause of action has accrued to challenge the recovery proceedings so initiated.

(2.) Sri Vivek Raj Singh, appearing for Respondent No. 2, in response to the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri O.P. Srivastava, submitted that the Petitioner is guilty of filing successive writ petitions with respect to the recovery of the same defaulted amount of loan and for that matter, the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petitions has imposed a costs of rupees ten lacs on the Petitioner, as the Petitioner has been habitual of abusing the process of the Court. He further submitted that despite the interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition that the property shall not be alienated, certain properties have been alienated under the resolution of the Board by the Managing Director Mr. P. Kumar. There are other allegations also against the conduct of the Petitioner.

(3.) Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner disputes the aforesaid facts and says that the Petitioner has not abused the process of the Court and the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 are not correct. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no sale has been effected of any property of the Petitioner. Stalling the recovery proceedings now and then on mere technical grounds being raised by the borrower or guarantor would defeat the very purpose of advancement of loan and the recovery thereof. Coercive measures are taken only when the borrower fails to repay the amount of loan as per the terms of the agreement and the guarantor also does not fulfill his part of the obligation. Under such circumstances, there remains no option with the financial institution but to take recourse to the recovery proceedings and recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Ofcourse this has to be done in accordance with the law and the rules so prescribed.