PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab National Bank is the Petitioner. It prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction Notice dated December 29, 1985 issued by the Collector-cum-Deputy Excise and taxation Commissioner, Faridabad by which the property of Respondent No. 3 was to be put to auction for the purpose of recovering the arrears of sales tax the claim of the Petitioner is that the properties sought to be auctioned are, intact, hypothecated with the Bank who had to recover an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- at the time of the filing of the petition it has been further averred that the total amount of money which had to be recovered by the state towards the arrears of sales tax etc. was Rs. 8,78,117/- which was adequately secured as two Bonds of the value of Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 8 lacs in favour of Mr. Surender Nath Sehgal who was the surety of Respondent No. 3 had been attached by the Department vide order dated November 26, 1990.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was inter alia averred that the bonds "will mature on 8.3.92. Since the bonds are immature, the department has a right to make the recovery of Govt. dues from the attached property of the Company which was made in the year 1985-86 in accordance with with the previsions of Land Revenue Act".

(3.) This Writ petition came up for hearing on November 5, 1993. It was pointed out by the ]carried Counsel for the Petitioner that by now the bonds had matured and in case the amount due to the state Government towards the arrears of sales tax has already been recovered, the relief prayed for by the Petitioner could he granted. The case was accordingly, adjourned to enable Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to verify the factual position. Mr. Jaswant Singh states that he has been informed telephonically that the bonds have been encashed and that the amount due to the state Government towards the arrears to sales tax has been recovered. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the state Government would not auction the properties mentioned in the auction Notice dated December 29, 1985.