LAWS(HPH)-1998-3-12

LEELA DUTT Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL

Decided On March 17, 1998
LEELA DUTT Appellant
V/S
Himachal Pradesh Financial Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings under which the balance amount of loan and interest allegedly due and payable to the respondent Corporation is being recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The main challenge is that these proceedings have been initiated on the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent Corporation that a sum of Rs. 8,85,512 was due from the petitioner, which certificate was issued without giving him any opportunity. This certificate is issued under Section 3(1)(d)(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M.A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1981 Kar 193, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the certificate issued by the managing director for recovery of the loan amount deserves to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity to show cause was given or enquiry held for holding that an amount of Rs. 8,85,512 was actually due and payable by the petitioner.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has made an attempt to convince this court that in the absence of any provision in the Act for giving notice to show cause or for holding enquiry, the principles of natural justice have not been violated and there is no infirmity in the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent Corporation, on the basis of which the proceedings for recovery as arrears of land revenue have been started.

(3.) APPLYING the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned judges of the Karnataka High Court in M.A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1981 Kar 193, have also held that the certificate issued by the managing director to the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of loans due as arrears of land revenue was violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the loanee concerned by issuing a show cause notice or by holding enquiry about the actual amount due and payable by him.