Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 848 (RAJ)

Somani Syntex v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation

2008-03-24

VINEET KOTHARI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the respondent R.F.C. challenging the impugned action of the Respondent-R.F.C. under section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards One Time Settlement proposal given by the petitioner which was favourably recommended by the General Manager of R.F.C. Bhilwara vide Annexure 3 which according to the petitioner was sent for approval to the Head Office in January, 2000 as stated in para 8 of the writ petition. According to the said proposal after waiver of penal interest and charging of the simple interest, the Branch Manager recommended recovery of Rs. 11.71 lacs (6.90 lacs towards principal, Rs. 4.35 lacs towards interest and Rs. 0.46 lacs towards other moneys). According to the petitioner, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as up-front amount against the said amount recommended to be settled by the Branch Manager. Thereafter it appears that the competent Committee at Head Office Level considered the case of the petitioner in presence of representative of the petitioner-unit Mr. Bhagat Ram Somani on 10.10.2001 vide Annexure R/1 dated 3.11.2001 and the settlement proposal was rejected. In the said communication, it is stated that "offer of the Committee was not acceptable to your representative, hence the case was rejected."However, it is not disclosed in the said letter as to what was that offer of the Committee which the Committee wanted the petitioner to accept or respond to. No other reason has also been assigned by the R.F.C. in the said communication for rejecting the One Time Settlement proposal, which was forwarded by the Branch Manager of R.F.C. vide Annexure 3 as aforesaid. 3. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile industrial unit of the petitioner has already been taken over and sold by the respondent-R.F.C. in open auction and it is only for the recovery of balance amount that they have given notice for recovery of said amount to the petitioner and have forwarded recovery certificate to the Tehsildar under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. 4. Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the communication of respondent-R.F.C. Annexure R/1 dated 3.11.2001, so called decision on the One time Settlement Proposal of the petitioner is wholly non-speaking order. 4. Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the communication of respondent-R.F.C. Annexure R/1 dated 3.11.2001, so called decision on the One time Settlement Proposal of the petitioner is wholly non-speaking order. Same does not contain either any reason nor it even discloses as to what was the offer of respondent-R.F.C. which it made to the petitioner for settling the account in question. 5. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the said communication or decision of respondent-R.F.C. dated 3.11.2001 with further direction to the respondent-R.F.C. to consider the case of the petitioner wholly de novo from the stage when said proposal Annexure 3 was forwarded to Head Office by the Branch Manager of the R.F.C. The respondent-R.F.C. or its competent authority or Committee is expected to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner once again and pass a detailed speaking order in this regard either accepting or rejecting the said proposal. It is needless to say that till such proposal is considered afresh by the respondent-R.F.C. no further action against the petitioner at this stage can be taken. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the General Manager (Recovery),R.F.C., Jaipur on 15.4.2008. The said Committee or the Authority of the respondent-R.F.C. is expected to take a decision in the matter within one month thereafter on or before 30.5.2008. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of respondent-R.F.C. the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ petition in this Court. 6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******