TAJSINGHLATAHMANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three analogous writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation (for short P.I.L) and the points involved are similar in nature. Hence it is convenient to dispose them of by this common judgment. These petitions would, however, be referred as first, second and third writ petitions.

(2.) In the first writ petition filed by Dr. Taj Singh Lakshmana (in person). Chairman of the Bihar Sick Industries Association the petitioners has stated that about 7000 Entreoreneurs have obtained separate loans from the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna (respondent No. 2) and separate agreements have been executed in respect of all the Entrepreneurs. But those agreements have not been filed and only one of them was shown in the Court. Nothing can be ascertained with certainty from the alleged prayer made in paragraph 10 of the first writ petition. However, the prayer in the first writ petion is that this Court may treat this petition as a regular writ petition against the Bihar State Financial Corporation (for short "the B S F.C ") and to take necessary action against Shri A.K. Singh, Managing Director, B.S.F C (respondent No. 2), so that any allegation stated by the petitioner, if contested by the said respondent, shall bs proved by him with concrete evidence and supporting documents. Further prayer is that the B S F C. may bs restrained from taking any action against those entrepreneurs whom the B S B.C. had failed to disburse the full sanctioned loans. The next part of the relief appears to be that this Court may writ off the entire interest and other charges accumulated during the past many years against the aforesaid 7000 entrepreneurs, who have obtained loans from the B S.F C. and have not paid the amount as agreed upon and that only principal amount may be left to be paid by the promoters after deducting the amount already paid by them.

(3.) The aforesaid 7000 entrepreneurs obtained different loans from the B S.F C. (respondent No. 2) and executed different agreements. It appears that part of the loan was disbursed to all the entrepreneurs, but the entiae amount was not disbursed and when they went for further relief of the loan, they were exploited as the petitioner or the entrepreneurs refused to pay bribe (vide paragraph 2 of the first writ petition).