BHAGYALAXMI POWERLOOM UNIT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is pending before this Court for more than 10 years challenging the demand notice issued on 31st August, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 3,35,672. 40 p. The Orissa State financial Corporation (for short, 'corporation')did not muster the courage to make recovery of the public money. A sum of Rs. 51,960/- was advanced to a partnership firm of which one Mr. Durga Madhab Patnaik was the sole proprietor vide order dated 10th february, 1982. As per the terms of agreement for sanction of loan, the entire amount had to be paid in 7 l/2 years in 13 half yearly instalments. The entire amount had to be deposited by the month of August, 1989, but not a single pie had been deposited by said durga Madhab Patnaik. The Corporation was kind enough not to initiate the proceeding for making recovery of the loan amount. Instead, the Corporation accepted the application made by the said borrower Durga madhab Patnaik that the loan be shifted in the name of his wife as she became the sole proprietor of the firm for the reason that he had become a government servant and was ineligible to have any private business vide letter dated 19-2-1990. In September, 1993, the loan was rearranged in the name of Smt. Premamanjari Patnaik and the said loan amount had to be recovered in 9 years in 16 half-yearly instalments. As not a single instalment was deposited, the entire arrangement was recalled vide order dated 31st August, 1998.

(2.) THERE is nothing on record to show as to why a public Financial. Corporation remained merely a silent spectator for a period of sixteen years as borrower was adamant not to deposit a single instalment. When the impugned notice for recovery was sent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. No interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner. It is a clear cut case where the statutory authorities dealing with public money are behaving without any sense of responsibility and not making any attempt for recovery under the garb that the matter is pending in the Court though no interim order had ever been passed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) WE have issued notice to the Corporation on 4th September, 2008 to explain as to under what circumstance, in the absence of any interim order from this Court, the corporation was so charitable to the petitioner that no attempt was made to recover the loan after advancing the loan in 1982. A period of 26 years has elapsed and not a single penny has been recovered so far from the petitioner.