HARPAL SINGH Vs. ASST. COLLECTOR, 2ND GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of present writ petition has challenged the demand notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the District Collector, Distt. Mohali, calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,84,708/- (Forty five lacs eighty four thousand seven hundred and eight) only by 28th August, 2006. It has also been mentioned therein that on his failure arrest warrant would be issued against the petitioner. This notice has been issued in pursuance to the certificate issued by the Financial Corporation under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporations Act (for short 'SFCs Act'). Section 32(G) of the SFCs Act reads as under :-

(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order under Section 32(G) of the SFCs Act which is sought to be executed by way of Annexure P-1 was issued without any notice to the petitioner and, therefore, the same being in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh and others, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 526 : AIR 1998 SC 2885.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The letters and the notice referred to by the respondents nowhere indicate that Specified Authority had issued any notice to the petitioner with regard to proceedings under Section 32(G) of the SFCs Act and the said certificate has been issued without complying with the principles of natural justice. The authority replied upon by the petitioner cannot be of any help to him because in the case of S.K. Bhargava (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the provisions of Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act and was pleased to hold that as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of this Act, then it is incumbent on the Managing Director under Section 3(1)(b) to determine as to what amount is due from the defaulter. Therefore, it would be necessary to hold proceedings by a quasi-judicial authority.