MOHAN LAL Vs. REHABILITATION FINANCE ADMINISTRATION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegations that a sum of Rs. 5,998/4/- alleged to have been advanced by the Rehabilitation Finance Administration to Janwardas Dalchand was being recovered from the petitioner as a guarantor for the loan although he never stood surety for the same. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Sawai Jaipur, had threatened to attach his property without taking recourse to proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act. On behalf of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration it was stated that the petitioner had not come with clean hands. There was documentary evidence to show that the petitioner had stood as surety for Janwardas Dalchand, that due notices were sent to him from time to time, and that in any case the proceedings complained against had been taken under sec. 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act (No. 1 of 1890 ). and the petitioner was not entitled to any notice under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. Various documents were produced by the respondent in support of his reply, and the copies thereof were placed on record, Ex. D. 1 is the letter of guarantee executed by Mohanlal petitioner in favour of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration on 28th November 1951, Ex. D. 7 is the letter by Mohanlal agreeing to become a surety for Janwardas. Certain documents showing an enquiry by the Inspector as to the solvency of Mohanlal were also produced Ex. D. 11 is a letter by the department to Janwardas calling upon him to repay the loan and a copy thereof was sent to Mohanlal as well. Ex 13 is a copy of the agreement by which Mohanlal agreed to become surety on various terms. The original documents were pronounced in court. The petitioner had not the courage to deny the genuineness of these documents, and it is obvious that the Court. The ground alone is sufficient to throw out this petition, but as certain question of law were also canvassed as to the illegality of the procedure, we propose to go into them as well.

(2.) LEARNED counsel urged that sec. 15 of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act 1948 (Act No. XII of 1948) permitted recovery of the amount due against the debtor as arrears of land revenue but that it did not permit proceedings against a guarantor. This is a misconception. The section only provides for the mode of recovery, and does not restrict its operation to principal debtors. That section is applicable in all case where the amount is due in accordance with the terms of any contract of under the provisions of sec. 14 (which section, however, is not relevant in the present case ).