PRITY INDUSTRIES Vs. ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are related to the same property and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 3777 of 2002 M/s. Prity Industries installed a cooking fuel plant for cooking purpose. The Petitioner -industry was registered as a Small Scale Industrial unit with the District Industries Center. The same was installed at Badakera in the district of Angul for manufacturing of cooking fuel from Sal leaves, paddy straw, sugarcane straw which is substitute to LB. Gas and other cooking gasses for domestic purpose. Financial assistance in the form of term loan was provided by the Opposite Party Corporation to the tune of Rs. 10,81,500.00 which was disbursed in the month of May, 1995 towards factory shed, installation and acquisition of plant and machineries, its installation and electrification in the month of May, 1995. The Petitioner also acquired land to the extent of Ac 1.47 for that purpose and also invested Rs. 4.80 from her own source. However due to default and non -payment of the loan amount, possession of the unit was taken over by the OSFC under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act on 3.3.2001.

(3.) HOWEVER , the Petitioner has denied to have any knowledge of the decision of the DAC meeting and the selection of bidder and stated that no such letter was allegedly received by the Petitioner and even the BLNC meeting as well as selection of Opposite Party No. 4 (Petitioner in the other Writ Petition) was not intimated to the unit. However, in the other Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 7395 of 2006) it is averred that while the situation was thus, an interim order was passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 3777 of 2002 on 17.6.2002 to the effect that until further orders there shall be stay of the Order Dated 28.2.2002 due to which the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7395 of 2006 did not remain in a position to further proceed but the Opposite Parties again seized the property in question under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act on 6.5.2006. However, it is alleged by the Opposite Parties -Corporation that some machineries and other assets have been taken away by the Petitioner from the premises of the Unit.