Ved Parkash Datta vs Punjab State

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

This is plaintiff''s second appeal in whose suit for declaration to the effect that the respondentState was not entitled to make additional demand of Rs. 16,721.20 and to grant mandatory injunction restraining them from recovering the said amount, the plaint was returned on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the said order was maintained in appeal.

The State of Punjab prepared a scheme for rendering easy financial assistance to the purchasers of plots of Industrial Areas of the State and in order to enable them to set up factory premises and to install machinery therein. The plaintiff was owner in possession of plot No. S.255, Industrial Area, Jullundur City. He applied for loan under the above said scheme and the loan of Rs. 25.000/ was granted to him. He mortgaged the above said plot with the Government for Rs. 25,000/ and the documents of title were deposited with the State of Punjab. The loan was sanctioned on the condition that it would be utilised for construction of factory building as per letter from the Director of Industries Punjab State, addressed to the District Industries Officer Jullundur and sent to the plaintiff under endorsement dated 20.11.1987. The plaintiff returned the amount of loan along with the agreed interest. However, the State of Punjab through its Secretary Industries Department ordered that since the plaintiff did not comply with the conditions on which the loan was sanctioned, as such penal rent amounting to Rs. 16,721.20 was ordered to be recovered from him. Proceedings for the recovery of this amount were accordingly started. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the said additional amount was not recoverable from the plaintiff.

The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The other pleas raised by the plaintiff were controverted. The trial Court found that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit in view of section 45(1) of the Punjab State Aid to Industries Act, 1935, which reads as under

"The decision of the State Government as to whether the conditions laid down in or under any of the provisions of this Act have been satisfied shall be final, and no suit shall be brought in any civil Court to set aside or modify any order made thereunder,"

However, it was found on the facts that the said mount was determined after issuing due notice to the plaintiff. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree, dismissing the plaintiffs suit. In this Court, it was contended at the time of motion hearing that section 45(1) of the Punjab State Aid to Industries Act, 1932, does not bar the filing of the suit in respect of said penalty.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Section 45(1) of the Act, reproduced above, clearly lays down that "as to whether the conditions laid down in or under any of the provisions of this Act have been satisfied or not shall be final." Since it wasnoticed by both the Courts below that the plaintiff has violated the conditions and the amount was determined after notice to him, the same could not be challenged by way of suit. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the second appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Since at the time of motion hearing, on 14.12.1978, recovery of the penalty was stayed, the plaintiff will be liable to pay the said amount with 12% per annum interest from the date it became due till it is paid.