JUDGMENT S. P. Mehrotra, J.—The present application has been filed on behalf of the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. (in short “P.I.C.U.P.”) (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition), inter alia, praying that the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. S. R. Singh and Hon. S. P. Mehrotra, JJ. in the aforesaid writ petition (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002) be modified and the writ petition be dismissed. 2. The said order dated July 19, 2002, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002 is quoted below : “In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta and another v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others, following questions came up for consideration before this Bench : “First, whether the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the State Act, 1972) has been rendered void and inoperative, after the insertion of Section 32G in the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (in short the Central Act, 1951) in so far as it relates to recovery of debt payable to the Corporation? ; Second, whether Section 3 of the State Act, 1972, is inconsistent with Section 32G of the Central Act, 1951, and if it is so, what is the effect? ; Third, whether the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain an application of the Corporation for recovery under Section 3 of the State Act, 1972 of debt not being less than Rs. 10 lacs, is barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Bank’s and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short the Central Act, 1993) ; Fourth, whether the U. P. State Financial Corporation having taken possession of the assets and properties of the borrower company under Section 29 of the Central Act, 1951, was bound to exhaust its remedy under the said provision before intimating recovery proceeding against the sureties/guarantors?” Some of the questions involved in the said writ petition arise for consideration in the case as well. Accordingly it is directed that this petition may be listed after disposal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta and another v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others. Accordingly it is directed that this petition may be listed after disposal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta and another v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others. Interim order dated 9.5.2002 is modified to the extent that the Corporation may take recourse to the provisions of Sections 29, 31 and 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act or it may move an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for the recovery of its dues against the petitioner.” 3. It appears that due to difference of opinion among the learned Judges constituting Division Bench (Hon. S. R. Singh and Hon. S. P. Mehrotra, JJ.) in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta and another v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others, the said Division Bench referred the questions mentioned above to larger Bench by the order dated 12.7.2002 passed in the said writ petition (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002). The relevant portion of the said order dated 12.7.2002 is quoted below : “By the Court Accordingly registry is directed to place the record of this writ petition before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for nominating the larger Bench for an authoritative decision of the issues as framed in the first paragraph of the judgment of one of us (S. R. Singh, J.). Pending decision of the writ petition interim order dated 19.3.2002 is modified to the extent that the Corporation may take recourse to the provisions of Sections 29, 31 and 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act or it may move an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for the recovery of its dues against the petitioner.” 4. As some of the questions involved in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 arose for consideration in the present case also, the present case, by the order dated 19.7.2002, quoted above, was directed to be listed after disposal of the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002. 5. The present application has been filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P., inter alia, praying for modification of the said order dated 19.7.2002. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002. 5. The present application has been filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P., inter alia, praying for modification of the said order dated 19.7.2002. In the affidavit sworn on 15.11.2002 filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P. in support of the said application, it is, inter alia, stated that by the notification dated 11.12.1986 issued by the Central Government, Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, was not notified to apply to P.I.C.U.P. Copy of the said notification has been filed as Annexure-C.A.-11 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P. in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002. 6. It is, inter alia, further stated in the said affidavit filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P. in support of the said application that P.I.C.U.P. has not been notified by the Central Government for the purposes of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is, inter alia, further stated in the said affidavit that the said facts could not be pointed before the Division Bench when the said order dated July 19, 2002, was passed and in the circumstances, it is prayed that the said order dated July 19, 2002, be modified, and the writ petition be dismissed. 7. We have heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the P.I.C.U.P. and Shri Tarun Agrawala, learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Shri Anuraj Khanna, learned counsel for P.I.C.U.P. submits that by the notification dated 11.12.1986 (Annexure-C.A.-11 to the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition) issued by the Central Government, Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 has not been made applicable to P.I.C.U.P. It is further submitted that P.I.C.U.P. has not been notified by the Central Government for the purposes of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In the circumstances, it is submitted by Shri Khanna that the aforesaid questions referred by the Division Bench to larger Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 do not arise in the present case, and as such, the said order dated July 19, 2002 deserves to be modified and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 do not arise in the present case, and as such, the said order dated July 19, 2002 deserves to be modified and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In reply, Shri Tarun Agrawala, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the questions involved in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 arise in the present case also, and as such, there is no occasion for modifying the order dated 19.7.2002. It is further submitted by Shri Agrawala that by the said Notification dated 11.12.1986 (Annexure-C.A.-11 to the counter-affidavit) issued by the Central Government, Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 32D, 32E and 32F of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, have been made applicable to P.I.C.U.P. As the recovery proceedings are being taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and some of the questions mentioned above deal with the inter-relation between the provisions of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, vis-a-vis the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the Division Bench rightly passed the said order dated 19.7.2002 in the present writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002, and there is no occasion for modification of the said order. 10. It is further submitted by Shri Agrawala that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are guarantors in respect of the loan given to the company, namely, M/s. Associated Infotech Ltd., The proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, were initiated by P.I.C.U.P. against the said company. One of the aforesaid questions referred by the Division Bench to larger Bench, namely, question No. 4 is, thus, relevant in the present case also. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002) and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the P.I.C.U.P. shows that P.I.C.U.P. initiated proceedings against the company, namely, M/s. Associated Infotech Ltd. under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. While the said proceedings against the company under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 were in progress, P.I.C.U.P. also initiated proceedings against the petitioner Nos. While the said proceedings against the company under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 were in progress, P.I.C.U.P. also initiated proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, who had given guarantee in respect of loan given to the said company. The said proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of their guarantee were evidently initiated under the provisions of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. 13. Thus, while the proceedings against the said company are being taken under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of their guarantee are being taken under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. 14. Two of the questions, namely question No. 1 and question No. 2 referred to larger Bench, as noted above, are as follows : “(1) Whether the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the State Act, 1972) has been rendered void and inoperative, after the insertion of Section 32G in the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (in short the Central Act, 1951) in so far as it relates to recovery of debt payable to the Corporation? ; (2) Whether Section 3 of the State Act, 1972, is inconsistent with Section 32G of the Central Act, 1951, and if it is so, what is the effect?” 15. The said questions evidently deal with the inter-relationship between the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972) and the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, after the insertion of Section 32G in the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 by the Act No. 43 of 1985. 16. By the Notification dated 11.12.1986 mentioned above, the provisions of Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 32D, 32E and 32F of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 have been made applicable to PICUP. 17. In the present case, as noted above, PICUP has already initiated proceedings against the said company under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. 18. Simultaneously, P.I.C.U.P. has initiated proceedings under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of their guarantee in respect of the loan given to the said company. 19. 18. Simultaneously, P.I.C.U.P. has initiated proceedings under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of their guarantee in respect of the loan given to the said company. 19. The aforesaid two questions in essence are as to whether the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, has been rendered void and inoperative, after the insertion of Section 32G in the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, on account of the inconsistency, if any, between Section 3 of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The answer to the said questions would evidently involve consideration of the inter-relationship between the provisions of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and those of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. 20. Therefore, the said questions are relevant in the present case also. 21. It is further pertinent to refer to question No. 4 referred to larger Bench, which is as follows : “4. Whether the U. P. State Financial Corporation having taken possession of the assets and properties of the borrower company under Section 29 of the Central Act, 1951, was bound to exhaust its remedy under the said provision before initiating recovery proceeding against the sureties/guarantors?” 22. In the present case, as noted earlier, P.I.C.U.P. is taking simultaneous proceedings, namely, the proceedings against the assets and properties of the borrower company, i.e., M/s. Associated Infotech Ltd. under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, as well as the proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, on the basis of their guarantee. 23. Evidently, therefore, the aforesaid question No. 4 arises in the present case also. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that some of the questions referred to larger Bench by the order dated 12.7.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 arise in the present case also. 25. Hence, there is no question of any modification of the order dated 19.7.2002, passed by the Division Bench in the present case (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002). 26. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 arise in the present case also. 25. Hence, there is no question of any modification of the order dated 19.7.2002, passed by the Division Bench in the present case (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002). 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid application filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P. is misconceived, and the same is liable to be rejected. The said application is accordingly rejected.