Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 296 (PAT)

Raj Narain Prasad v. State of Bihar

1992-08-20

G.C.BHARUKA, S.B.SINHA

body1992
JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha aid G. C. Bharuka, JJ. - In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the tender notice published in Nav Bharat Times dated 29.3.1991 issued by the Bihar State Financial Corporation purported to be in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act) 1951 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay sufficient amount of money so as to meet the liability of M/s Suraj Automobiles, Jamshedpur so that the two Buses may be delivered to the petitioner. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent-Corporation on 1.11.1985 for a sum of Rs. 9.23 lakhs for purchase of two Tata's Chasiss manufactured by Telco and body building thereon so as to convert them into two Deluxe buses. An amount of Rs. 7.90 lakhs was sanctioned on 31.12.1986 (Annexure-2). A loan agreement was entered into by and between the parties thereto on 24.3.1987 in terms whereof a sum of 4.3 lacks (Rupees four lakhs three thousands) was advanced for purchase of the aforementioned Chassis whereafter the same was handed over to M/s Suraj Automobiles, Jamshedpur for the purpose of Body Building thereupon. As per the said agreement, the rest of the loan amount was to be released by the Corporation upon completion of the Body Building by the said Suraj Automobiles. 3. Allegedly the said Suraj Automobiles by a letter dated 27.11.1987 (Annexure-3) asked the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 4.91 lakhs. 4. One Bishundeo Prasad, who was brother-in-law of the petitioner, executed collateral security by way of guarantee of repayment of loan advanced in favour of the petitioner. In January, 1988 the said Bishundeo Prasad backed out from his promises and stated that the said documents of collateral security purported to have been furnished by the petitioner was a forged and fabricated document. 5. The petitioner thereafter was intimated about the said fact by the respondent. An enquiry was made in that regard, by the Branch Manager of the respondent-Corporation who submitted his report which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. The Corporation, however instead of making payment of the amount to the body builders issued a notice dated 26.5.1988 to the petitioner asking him to pay the instalments which according to the respondent had become due. The Corporation, however instead of making payment of the amount to the body builders issued a notice dated 26.5.1988 to the petitioner asking him to pay the instalments which according to the respondent had become due. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed various representations. However, by reason of the impugned notice dated 29.3.1991 the Corporation expressed its opinion to take recourse to section 29 of the said Act. 7. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent-Corporation wherein it has been stated that the dues of the Corporation as on 31.3.90 became Rs. 6,71,669.13 paise, as the petitioner has not paid a single instalment. It was stated that as the petitioner committed a forgery in relation to furnishing of collateral security and thus cheated the Corporation, despite the fact that he offered to furnish other collateral security, the respondent did not accede to his request to pay the balance amount of the sanctioned amount. 8. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that from a perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ application, it would appear that the Schedule of the repayment of the loan was on the following terms:- "Schedule for repayment: Payable in 48 (Forty eight) monthly intalments beginning after two months from the date of release against body or six months after release against the first Chasis. The instalment is as under:- The first (Sixteen) monthly instalments - Rs. 19,750/- each Subsequent 16 (Sixteen) monthly instalments - Rs. 17.250/- each and last 16 (Sixteen) monthly instalmeats - Rs. 12,375/- each." 9. The learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, no amount has yet become due. It was further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner became ready and willing to furnish other collateral security, the respondents-Corporation ought to have released the rest of the amount and ought to have paid the same to the Body Builders. 10. The learned counsel submitted that owing to the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent-Corporation, the buses in question are still lying idle. 11. 10. The learned counsel submitted that owing to the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent-Corporation, the buses in question are still lying idle. 11. The learned counsel is support of this contention has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager, U. P. Financial Corporation & Ors reported in JT 1992 (2) S.C. 326. 12. Mr. Shankar Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed before us the entire file relating to in connection with the present matter. 13. It is admitted that Bishundeo Prasad brother-in-law of the petitioner furnished collateral security. Bishundeo Prasad by his letter dated 7.1.88 categorically stated that he had not executed any document whatsoever and Shri Raj Narain Prasad had got the same executed by another person in his name. He thus disowned his liabilities as a guarantor. The report of the Manager Bihar State Financial Corporation which was submitted by upon an enquiry made in this regard is also on the file. 14. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that all the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to title of land are either forged or tampered with. In that report it bas been stated as follows:- "On receipt of the above complaint, we investigated the case and found from the documents packet of the concern of HO that almost all the documents submitted by the concern in regard to title of land are either forged or tempered with. We also contacted the C. I. and Karamchari of the area in order of verify the title of land. From perusal of original records, it was found that land measuring 4.69 acres stands in the name of Sri Bishundeo Prasad under different khata nos but details about plot no. and area are not available in the register II. As such, it transpired that even Shri Bishundeo Prasad has no documentary evidence of his clear title over the plot of land mortgaged to the Corporation. It was also found that the photograph of Sri Bishundeo Prasad submitted at the time of documentation is also not of the original owner. Legal Section also may be asked to make detail enquiry in this regard. The undersigned had also visited the site alongwith Sri Md. Nafis, Dy. It was also found that the photograph of Sri Bishundeo Prasad submitted at the time of documentation is also not of the original owner. Legal Section also may be asked to make detail enquiry in this regard. The undersigned had also visited the site alongwith Sri Md. Nafis, Dy. Manager and from local enquiry it was gathered from enquiry that the land shown at the time of pre-sanction inspection is under the possession of Sri Bishundeo Prasad." 15. It has not been disputed that the original collateral security furnished by Bishundeo Prasad was on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. As noticed hereinbefore Mr. Bishundeo Prasad agreed to furnish other collateral security but it was not accepted by the respondent-Corporation, in our opinion, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. From the note sheets it appears that the petitioner was directed to furnish collateral security himself or by his other relations. There is nothing on records to show that at any point of time the petitioner became ready at and willing to furnish collateral security himself. 16. In a case of this nature, in our opinion, the action of the respondent in directing the petitioner to pay the entire amount cannot be said to be arbitrary and thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Further in view or the conduct of the petitioner in furnishing forged collateral security, in our opinion, the petitioner is also not entitled to any equitable relief from this court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. This application is, therefore, dismissed.