AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner herein took a loan from the Punjab Financial Corporation. According to the petitioner, the last instalment of loan was granted on October 29, 1983. In 1984-85 the petitioner was declared a ''sick concern'' by the Economic Investigation and Statistical Division, Ludhiana. The petitioner committed default in the repayment of loan instalments. Consequently, the possession of the premises was taken on May 12, 1988 and a notice was published in the press inviting tenders for the sale of properties of the petitioner-mill. A copy of this notice, which was published in the press on June 5, 1988 is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition.
The petitioner has averred that the action of the Corporation in taking possession and advertising the same is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. Vide Civil Misc No. 14380 of 1989 a prayer had been made for vacation of the stay order. Vide orders dated November 16 1989 A. L. Bahri, J. had declined to vacate the ad interim order passed by the Motion Bench, but the Corporation was directed to file the written statement within 15 days and the writ petition was ordered to be listed for hearing in the month of December, 1989. No written statement has been filed to date. No one has appeared either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent.
Whatever be the technicalities of the matter, the fact remains that the petitioner received the last instalment of loan from the Corporation on October 29, 1983 and it became a ''sick concern'' in the year 1984-85. The case represents a familiar modus operandi. Grab public funds and become a sick unit. The public authority, mainly the respondent-Corporation, is charged with the duties and responsibilities of ensuring the recovery of the loans advanced by it. It has to salvage whatever is possible. The impugned action is only step in that direction. Sudden taking of possession of the properties is necessary as otherwise the main assets may not be available by the time the strict formalities are complied with.
In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not inclined to help the petitioner who has not carried out its contractual obligation of repayment of loan. Even otherwise, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in support of the petition.
Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.