HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar question is involved in both the writ petitions, hence they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Haryana Financial Corporation, one of the opposite parties of the writ petitions have financed M/s. Cee Labs (P) Ltd. (opposite party No. 5 in the Writ Petition No. 37962 of 2003) situated in the State of Haryana and the recovery has been issued by the Collector, Rampur on the request of Haryana Financial Corporation through Collector, Sonepat who in turn requested the Collector, Rampur for issuing the same. According to the petitioner, his late father Brij Nandan Prasad was one of the Director of M/s. Cee Labs (P.) Ltd., he was wrongly shown as one of the guarantor and the ground of guarantee was alleged to be executed on 25.4.1996 whereas Sri Brij Nandan Prasad died on 1.11.1993. A letter of request was received by the Collector, Rampur, on the basis of the same recovery was issued. The petitioner has challenged impugned citation of said recovery dated 17.7.2003.

(3.) The cause of action accrued to the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the issuance of recovery by the Collector, Rampur and the consequential order was on the request of Haryana Financial Corporation, through the Collector, Sonepat, Haryana. The Collector, Rampur is only acting on behalf of Haryana Financial Corporation.