SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 10.11.2005 (P-9) and recovery certificate dated 12.6.2007 (P-8), which has been issued by exercising power in pursuance to the aforementioned notification.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a sick unit in an open auction on 9.10.2002 at a price of Rs. 12 lacs. In that regard an agreement dated 30.12.2002 (P-2), detailing mode of payments, instalments and other conditions agreed to between the parties was executed. A guarantee form was also got filled in from the petitioner (P-3). The petitioner deposited 25% of the auction money and the rest was to be paid in instalments as per terms of the agreement. The mode of payment is specified in sub-clause (i) of clause 4 of the agreement to sell and the same reads as under :-

(3.) IT is undisputed that the Government in terms of Section 32-G of the Act, has delegated the authority vide notification dated 10.11.2005 (P-9) to the Managing Director of the Haryana Financial Corporation for the purposes of the said Section. In pursuance to the notification, the Managing Director has addressed a letter to the Collector of the area for recovery of the outstanding amount (75% of the amount). Both the aforementioned orders are subject matter of challenge.