SUDHA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashment of Annexure P-10 agreement entered into by Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') with the respondent No. 5 and letter dtd. 13-8-1996, Annexure P-12 whereby the District Industries Centre, General Manager has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. The further prayer of the petitioner is to call for the records of the tenders dated 20-12-1995, 7-2-1996 and 23-5-1996 and deprecate the action of the Corporation as it has in a hurried manner effected the sale overlooking the actual price. In essence, the prayer is to set aside the same.

(2.) The facts as have been unfurled in the petition are that the petitioner had availed a term loan of Rs. 2,10,000/- for opening of an industry, namely, Sudha Chholdari Tent and Tarpoline Industries at Varadih in the District of Satna. It is to be noted here that a lease deed was executed by the D.I.C. Satna in favour of the petitioner to have the aforesaid industry. The agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Corporation at the time of grant of loan and terms and conditions were envisaged for payment of such loan. Respondent No. 3, Kamlesh Tripathi, husband of the petitioner, stood as Guarantor for grant or such loan. As the petitioner had become a defaulter in payment of the instalments steps were taken by the Corporation which recalled the loan and proceeded to seize the Unit under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After the loan was recalled and the Unit was seized an advertisement was published for its sale. Eventually the Unit in question has been sold in favour of the respondent No. 5 for a sum of Rupees 2,75,000/-. The present writ application relates to challenge of the said sale. Though various averments have been made challenging the exercise of the power under Section 29 of the Act, it is principally set forth in the petition that the sale in favour of the respondent No. 5 is unsustainable inasmuch as the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. U.P.F.C., AIR 1993 SC 935 and other various decisions have not been taken into consideration; no opportunity was given to the petitioner to fetch higher bidder who could have given more than 20 lacs for the Unit the Corporation has failed in its sacrosanct duty to get the better price; it has also committed gross illegality by not inviting respondents No. 3 and 4 for negotiation; the action taken by the Corporation exposes the mala fide of the Corporation which eventually makes the sale an illegal one. It is also pleaded that non-granting of time to the respondent No. 4 the purchaser arranged by the petitioner, speaks in volumes about the conduct of the Corporation to favour respondent No. 5 It is also putforth in the petition that in absence of proper notice to the Guarantor, respondent No. 3 the entire action of the Corporation is senistively susceptible. While assailing the sale by the Corporation on the aforesaid ground the petitioner has also called in question the propriety of the letter contained in Annexure P-12 hereby the lease granted in her favour has been cancelled by the D.I.C., Satna on the ground that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing before such cancellation.

(3.) A return and an additional affidavit have been filed by the Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein. It is contended by the Corporation that the petitioner had been given number of opportunities to deposit the dues but she had failed to comply with the same. It is also pleaded that the petitioner had challenged the action taken by the Corporation under Section 29 of the Act before this Court but the same had not met with success. It is also highlighted that the Guarantor had also called in question the propriety of the action taken by the Corporation under Section 29 of the Act but the same also did not meet with success. It is also brought on record that the purchaser who was arranged by the petitioner had also approached this Court but his approach did not bear any fruit. It is also putforth that after the property was seized under Section 29 of the Act there was an advertisement and three offers were received and after due-negotiation an agreement was executed in favour of the respondent No. 5. It is also stated that the notice was given to the respondent No 3, the guarantor, but he did not pay heed to clear the dues of the Corporation. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are the wife and husband and they have adopted dilatory tactics and, in fact, dragged the Corporation before the Court having no justifiable reason.