JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. Ishita Yadu, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 5. 2. Two petitioners-Smt. Kanta Bhandari and Raj Kumar Bhandari have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging recovery certificate dated 19.11.2002 issued by Managing Director, Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "PICUP") to Collector, Ludhiyana (State of Punjab) for recovery of Rs. 1,20,46,651.80 alongwith interest pendente lite and recovery charges on the ground that petitioners stood guarantor to the loan advanced to M/s Tanda Textile and Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "TTPM Company"), Office and Factory at Ariya Bazar, P.O. Surapur, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. The said Company defaulted in payment of loan amount and outstanding dues towards principal amount and interest computed till 31.07.2002 came to Rs. 1,20,46,659.80 (Principal amount Rs. 39,99,626.88 and Interest Rs. 80,50,024.92). 3. Facts stated in writ petition are that petitioner-1, Smt. Kanta Bhandari is wife of late Hari Om Bhandari and petitioner-2, Raj Kumar Bhandari is son of late Hari Om Bhandari. 4. Sri Hari Om Bhandari (now deceased) was Director of TTPM Company. The said Company was sanctioned a term loan by PICUP for setting up a textile processing house at Ambedkar Nagar vide letter dated 19.01.1987. Amount of term loan was Rs. 90 lacs and loan in lieu of Central Investment Subsidy was Rs. 15 lacs. 5. Sri Hari Om Bhandari resigned from Directorship of TTPM Company on 22.07.1994. Further, petitioner-2 also resigned from Directorship of TTPM Company with consent and approval of PICUP as noticed in PICUP's letter dated 17.02.1995. 6. TTPM Company in a fire incident got completely damaged and thereafter could not discharge its obligations since 1998 onwards. Recovery proceedings, consequently, were initiated by PICUP and a recovery certificate has been issued against Sri Hari Om Bhandari. When petitioners came to know of above recovery, sent a letter to PICUP that Sri Hari Om Bhandari has passed away on 13.12.2002, hence recovery certificate issued in his name should be returned. Recovery proceedings, consequently, were initiated by PICUP and a recovery certificate has been issued against Sri Hari Om Bhandari. When petitioners came to know of above recovery, sent a letter to PICUP that Sri Hari Om Bhandari has passed away on 13.12.2002, hence recovery certificate issued in his name should be returned. It was also said that Sri Hari Om Bhandari had resigned form Directorship of Company with consent and approval of PICUP, therefore, no recovery should be made against him or his heirs. However, impugned recovery certificate has been issued in the name of Sri Hari Om Bhandari to recover the amount from his assets/estate. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Sri Hari Om Bhandari ceased to be the guarantor, therefore, recovery could not have been initiated either from him or from his legal heirs and impugned recovery certificate is illegal. 8. PICUP has filed a counter affidavit sworn by C.B. Lal, Junior Manager Law, wherein death of Sri Hari Om Bhandari on 13.12.2002 is not disputed. However, it is said that recovery certificate was issued on 19.11.2002 when Sri Hari Om Bhandari was alive, therefore, it cannot be said that recovery certificate has been issued against a dead person and cannot be said to be nullity for that reason. Disclosing further facts it is said that a term loan of Rs. 90 lacs and Central Investment Subsidy of Rs. 15 lacs was sanctioned to TTPM Company. In respect of said amount there stood four guarantors who executed personal bond of guarantee for due repayment of term loan sanctioned by PICUP and they are, Sri T.L. Ratra, Sri R.K. Shukla, Sri Hari Om Bhandari and Dr. Inder Dev Chopra. 9. As per loan agreement and personal bond of Guarantee, Company as well as Guarantors, both were equally liable to pay loan and liability of guarantor is coextensive. Mere fact that Sri Hari Om Bhandari ceased to be Director of Company or resigned from Directorship of Company, would make no difference so far as personal bond and guarantee executed by him, is concerned, till the said guarantee is discharged or revoked with consent of parties including PICUP. Approval alleged by petitioners was granted by PICUP for changes to be made in shareholders of Company. Endorsement was made to that effect on relative share certificates which were pledged with PICUP. Approval alleged by petitioners was granted by PICUP for changes to be made in shareholders of Company. Endorsement was made to that effect on relative share certificates which were pledged with PICUP. Said approval was also conditional, i.e. subject to condition that Sri Raj Kumar Bhandari, Sri Ashwani Kumar Ratra, Smt. Padma Ratra and Sri Deepak Kumar Ratra will also execute personal bond of guarantee. At no point of time guarantee furnished by original promoters of Company was discharged, revoked or exonerated. In other words guarantee furnished by Sri Hari Om Bhandari was never discharged by PICUP. Sri Raj Kumar Bhandari, petitioner-2, did not furnish any guarantee for the term loan but pursuant to letter dated 02.01.1995 Sri A.K. Ratra, Sri D.K. Ratra and Smt. Padma Ratra executed person bond of guarantee dated 07.06.1996. TTPM Company having failed to pay dues of PICUP and guarantee of Sri Hari Om Bhandawi was never discharged, PICUP is liable to recover said loan from Sri Hari Om Bhandari and his assets/estates as also from TTPM Company. Liability is joint and several. Hence recovery proceedings initiated against Sri Hari Om Bhandari is valid and after his death recovery can be made from assets of Sri Hari Om Bhandari. 10. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioners a bare reiteration of averments made in writ petition is made and we find nothing to show that at any point of time personal bond of guarantee executed by Sri Hari Om Bhandari was discharged by PICUP. 11. These facts as emerged from record clearly show that Sri Hari Om Bhandari stood guarantor for ensuring repayment of term loan sanctioned and advanced by PICUP to TTPM Company. At no point of time personal bond of guarantee executed by Hari Om Bhandari was discharged or revoked or relieved. There is default in repayment of loan. Therefore, amount / dues can be recovered from TTPM Company as well as guarantors. 12. Clause 12 of Personal Bond of Guarantee (Annexure-CA-1 to counter affidavit) executed by Sri Hari Om Bhandari, reads as under: "12. There is default in repayment of loan. Therefore, amount / dues can be recovered from TTPM Company as well as guarantors. 12. Clause 12 of Personal Bond of Guarantee (Annexure-CA-1 to counter affidavit) executed by Sri Hari Om Bhandari, reads as under: "12. The guarantee herein contained shall not be revoked or affected by the death, dissolution/ insolvency of any one or more of the guarantors but shall continue to be binding and operative in respect of liabilities which have arisen upto the date of death as well as to liabilities which may arise thereafter in all respects and for all purposes until repayment of all moneys due to the corporation as aforesaid PROVIDED HOWEVER that the said liabilities shall in no case exceed the whole of the principal sum interest and other moneys which shall be due to the corporation at any line under the provisions of the aforesaid Mortgage." 13. When questioned, learned counsel for petitioners could not place any material before this Court to show that guarantee executed by Sri Hari Om Bhandari was ever discharged or revoked till the time when impugned recovery certificate was issued or even thereafter, therefore, we find no patent illegality in issue of recovery certificate against Sri Hari Om Bhandari who stood as guarantor for repayment of outstanding dues by M/s TTPM Company. 14. It is then argued that recovery ought to have been made firstly from Company and its assets and only thereafter from guarantors in view of Sections 3 and 4 of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") since amount was recoverable under aforesaid statute as provided in Clause 16 of Personal Bond of Guarantee, which reads as under: "16. The Guarantors hereby agree that any amount due from them hereunder to the Corporation shall be recoverable under the Uttar Pradesh Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972 (as amended from time to time) as arrears of revenue and further that it shall not be necessary for the Corporation to take recovery proceedings against the said company/ borrower before taking recovery proceedings under the said Act against the Guarantors." 15. This question has been considered by a Larger Bench of Apex Court in Sobran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 10 SCC 799 . This question has been considered by a Larger Bench of Apex Court in Sobran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 10 SCC 799 . Earlier in Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 758 and Civil Appeal No. 4257 of 2006 (Dr. Ashok Mahajan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) and other connected appeals, decided on 26.09.2006, the view taken by Court was that outstanding dues first should be recovered from assets of Company and if not satisfy then it should proceed against guarantor. However, correctness of decisions in Pavan Kumar Jain (Supra) and Dr. Ashok Mahajan (supra) came to be considered by a Larger Bench in Sobran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Court overruled both the aforesaid judgments observing that same were not correctly decided. It has been clearly held that guarantors do not enjoy any protection against recovery proceedings initiated under Section 4(2) of Act, 1972. The operative portion of Judgment in para 9 is reproduced as under: "9. In the light of what we have said above, we are of the view that Pawan Kumar Jain case was not correctly decided when it said that the guarantors cannot be proceeded against unless the property mortgaged or charged by the principal debtors in first sold. The later decision of the Court in Ashok Mahajan case has simply followed Pawan Kumar Jain case without making any qualitative contribution to the rational of the underlying judgment. We have, therefore, no hesitation in overruling both the decisions and holding that the guarantors do not enjoy any protection against recovery of proceedings under Section 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. These appeals accordingly fail and are, hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs." 16. In view of aforesaid decision of Larger Bench, the issue raised by petitioners that recovery proceedings should have been first initiated against principal debtor and pledged goods and not guarantors, is no more open to be agitated as it is now covered by Larger Bench judgment in Sobran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) against petitioners. Hence it is decided against petitioners. 17. Hence it is decided against petitioners. 17. The exposition of law in the light of Larger Bench judgment in Sobran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) has also been followed by this Court in M/s Raj Cement Company Ltd. and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No. 3394 of 1990), decided on 12.05.2016 and Mohd. Ikram Vs. Union Bank of India and others (First Appeal From Order No. 118 of 2018), decided on 10.01.2018. 18. When confronted, learned counsel for petitioners could not substantiate any argument to distinguish the aforesaid authorities. He also could not place any otherwise statutory provision which may show any defect in recovery certificate under challenge or may pursue us to take a view holding that recovery from guarantors cannot be made unless it is executed against assets of TTPM Company. We, therefore, find no illegality in recovery certificate in question. 19. Learned counsel for petitioners lastly contended that Sri Hari Om Bhandari having died, petitioners cannot be held personally responsible since they are not guarantors. However, it is not stated anywhere in writ petition nor any material has been placed before us to show that petitioners have not succeeded to any estate left by Sri Hari Om Bhandari or Sri Hari Om Bhandari has not been left any property which is succeeded by petitioners. Once a recovery proceeding have been initiated validly, it can be executed against heirs of such person to the extent they have succeeded assets/estate of deceased defaulter. The contention advanced otherwise is rejected. 20. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in writ petition. 21. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.