AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R.Calla, J.—Mr. A. K. Clerk has invited the attention of the court that besides the draft amendment dated June 23, 1997, there is one more draft amendment dated June 16, 1997, seeking to implead the Industries Commissioner for the State of Gujarat as party respondent No. 5. Mr. V. B. Garania, AGP, is already appearing in this matter on behalf of the State of Gujarat, i.e., respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he also appears for the Industries Commissioner, State of Gujarat, impleaded as party respondent No. 5 today. Service on respondent No. 5 is, therefore, waived by Mr. Garania. Mr. A. K. Clerk may file amended cause title so that the cause title may properly show respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 5.
The pleadings in this case are complete and when the matter came up today for admission before the court while the same is pending since 1994, all the parties submitted that the matter may be finally heard and disposed of right today.
Rule.
Mr. Dave waives service for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. V. B. Garania has waived service for respondents Nos. 3 and 5 and Mr. M. B. Gandhi has waived service for respondent No. 4.
The facts of the present case depict another illustrious and glaring instance of parties taking loans and lands from public bodies and the State Government, and then neither starting production nor paying due instalments back to the bodies which have loaned the amount and thereby block the land which is meant for industrial development and thus putting a brake on the industrial development of the State.
There is no dispute about the fact that a term loan of Rs. 14,30,000 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on August 17, 1988, by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation and disbursement letter in respect of this loan amount was also issued on September 2, 1988. Thereafter, on production of the necessary documents by the petitioner, the Gujarat State Financial Corporation has also advance a sum of Rs. 2,16,000 to the petitioner on December 22, 1989, and Rs. 4,49,000 on August 9, 1990, and the petitioner has not raised any grievance about the delay for the amount which has been advanced to it as aforesaid. There is also no dispute about the factual position that a sum of Rs. 2,52,660 was then advance to the petitioner on October 6, 1992, and Rs. 1,05,000 was advanced on June 9, 1993.
The petitioner was to put up a plastic processing unit at Sarigam, G.I.D.C. Estate in Valsad District. While this unit has not seen the day to start the production a grievance has been raised by the petitioner before this court that the Gujarat State Financial Corporation has disbursed the loan of Rs. 11.23 lakhs only to it as against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 14,30,000 and the amount of the subsidy to the tune of Rs. 3,44,000 has also not been paid. There are a lot of factual controversies about the non-payment of the dues by the petitioner to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and it has been pointed out by Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation that as on May 1, 1994, the additional amount against the petitioner-company was Rs. 16,92,835 which has now increased further with the interest. Mr. Gandhi has pointed out that the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation had to recover as on March, 1995, a sum of Rs. 1,92,465 from the petitioner, therefore, in the year 1995, the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation had evicted the petitioner from the premises which had been given by the Gujarat Development Corporation as also the plant, machinery and the entire unit. While the petitioner''s allegation is that he could not start the production work because the due amount of subsidy and the rest of the amount of loan, etc. have not been paid to it, the case of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation is that the petitioner failed to adhere to the time schedule with regard to repayment of the due amount of instalments and similar grievances have been raised on behalf of the Gujarat State Industrial Development Corporation in respect of non-payment of dues. Mr. V. B. Garania, AGP, appearing on behalf of the Government has submitted that in view of the letter dated October 28, 1995, issued by the Industries Commissioner for the State of Gujarat to the Gujarat State Financial Corporation, District Industries Centres and the Gujarat State Industrial Investment Corporation, etc., any party which has not been able to start the production is not entitled to any subsidy. Starting of a project or a unit and the actual starting of the production is a sine qua non for the payment of the subsidy from the Government and in the facts of the present case when the petitioner has failed to start the production work and the unit has at all not stated, there is no question of paying subsidy to the petitioner and the petitioner has no case whatsoever for getting the benefit. It has also been argued by Mr. Dave and Mr. Gandhi that when the petitioner himself had failed to adhere to the terms of loan and conditions on which it had to pay the dues to the Industrial Development Corporation, the petitioner has no case for getting the rest of the amount of the loan, i.e., amount other than that which had been disbursed or to get the possession or to retain the unit. It has been submitted that besides the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition it is the other way round and the respondents are entitled to recover their dues form the petitioner through its properties including the plant and machinery which was installed on the land given by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation to the petitioner from which he was evicted in 1995. Mr. Dave has referred to section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and Mr. Gandhi has relied upon section 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the pleadings available in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms on which the land was granted to it and Mr. Clerk has not been able to point out how much it had paid back to the State Financial Corporation against the amount of the loan which had been disbursed to it nor is he in a position to show that any amount has been paid by the petitioner to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The factual aspects as to for whose fault the petitioner could not start the production work cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction by this court but one thing is certain that the petitioner is a defaulter for the purpose of repayment of the loan and also in the matter of the payment of dues to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and he has also failed to adhere to the payment schedule for the purpose of starting plastic processing unit for which substantial amount of loan had been disbursed to it. The valuable piece of land meant for industrial development and substantial amount of the loan disbursed by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation has been blocked for considerable long time for more than eight years by now and thus the wholesome purpose for which such facilities are extended to the parties has been defeated and frustrated. It has been noticed that there is a growing tendency of taking loan from the public bodies in the name of the project for industrial development for which even land is taken from the Industrial Development Corporation, and thereafter neither the land is put to the correct use in time nor the money taken from the public bodies is put to the proper use for which it is meant, and such public bodies and corporations are dragged to the litigation by the parties taking loan and land from the corporations and public bodies and the court finds that the petitioner''s conduct in this case is no exception to this tendency which cannot be encouraged so as to defeat the object of the industrial development of the State and that too at the cost of the State exchequer. Once it is established that the petitioner has been a defaulter in the repayment of loan there is no question of issuing any writ in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-corporation and its authorities so as to restrain them from enforcing the recoveries or for quashing and setting aside the order dated September 5, 1995, or for sanctioning any additional term loan. To be more precise the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in this petition.
Mr. A. K. Clerk has relied upon Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., . The facts of the present case do not show that the corporation has backed out of its obligation. It is the admitted case of the parties that at least till August 9, 1990, by which the loan Rs. 6,65,000 had been disbursed there was nothing against the Gujarat State Financial Corporation according to the petitioner itself and it is also clear in the facts of this case that the petitioner himself had not kept his promise and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the promissory estoppel when substantial part of the amount of loan sanctioned had been disbursed to the petitioner in time and land had also been given to it.
Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, , has been cited by Mr. Clerk on the point that the State must act fairly to its citizens. It is found that in the present case it is the other way round. The Gujarat State Financial Corporation and Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation may of course say that the petitioner has not been fair to them. I fail to understand as to how the petitioner can make a grievance against the aforesaid corporations that they have not been fair to it. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has given land to the petitioner and the Gujarat State Financial Corporation has not only sanctioned the loan but has also disbursed the major and substantial part of the loan to the petitioner without any lapse on its part and, therefore, this decision in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, , is of no avail to the petitioner.
There is no merit in this special civil application. The same is hereby dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.