2002 Supreme(Bom) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
V.C. Daga P.V. Hardas, JJ.
Consolidated Distributors Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners.
Versus
Economic Development Corporation Ltd. another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 131 of 2002, decided on 19-6-2002.
Advocates appeared :
G.K. Sardessai, for petitioners.
M.S. Sonak, for respondent No. 1.
A.N.S. Nadkarni, Ad.Gen. with H.D. Naik, for respondent No. 2.

Headnote:State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) - Repayment of loan - Default in - Recall notice and final notice under Section 29 of SFC Act - Proceedings to take over possession and management of petitioner s unit - Corporation Act violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of Constitution - Sale conducted by corporation defective contended by petitioner - Resisted - Contention that petitioner is chronic defaulter - Natural facts about service of notice suppressed by petitioner - Held - Petition is belated - Inordinate delay of 15-16 months in filing petition not explained - Suppression of natural facts disentitled petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction - Number of disputed facts cannot be looked in writ petition - Corporation realised more than expected price which petitioner expected for their unit - No fault in decision of corporation - Petition dismissed. - Consider preliminary objec- tions raised on behalf of the respondents against the maintainability of the writ petition. At the outset that the petition suffers by gross delay and laches. The action under Section 29 of the Act, was completed by 5.1.2001. No steps were taken to challenge the same. Thereafter, third party rights have been created. During the course of hearing a Deed of Assignment cum Sale dated 24.5.2002 is brought to our notice, where in the industrial unit of the petitioners stands assigned and transferred in favour of respondent No. 2 in a sale conducted by the Corporation in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Act. This petition has been filed some time in the third week of April, 2002. The action under Section 29 was complete on 5.1.2001. There is no explanation whatsoever for this unreasonable delay of 15 or 16 months in filing the present petition.

       Apart from the delay in moving this petition, the petition as filed and the averments made therein are absolutely sketchy. Suppression of material facts, in the petition, are writ large. The petitioners have not only suppressed number of notices and letters but attempted to conceal serious defaults, committed by them right from the year, 1997. The petitioners have suppressed relevant correspondence from which it is evident that the petitioners had given false assurances and commitments while persuading the Corporation to refrain from initiating any action under Section 29 of the Act. Needless to mention that none of the assurances and commitments made were complied with by the petitioners. Not a single averment is to be found in the petition showing compliance of the commitment made by the petitioners from time to time. Notices had been regularly addressed to the petitioners in the matter of defaults committed by them. Such notice issued are dated 21.9.1998, 21.5.1998, 6.7.1998, 23.7.1998, 15.9.1998, 21.10.1998, 6.11.1998, 3.2.1999 and 24.3.1999. In the petition, the petitioners have merely referred to a letter dated 24.3.1999 giving an impression that prior to the said date, the petitioners have committed no defaults and without any opportunity to them, action under Section 29 of the Act has been taken. This clearly amounts to will full suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioners disentitling them to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court.

       It appears after notice dated 24.3.1999, number of opportunities have been afforded to the petitioners to regularise their loan account. By notice dated 28.9.1999, it was brought to the notice of the petitioners that not a single rupee has been paid by them despite commitments in writing contained in communications dated 5.5.1999 and 5.8.1999. This fact has also been suppressed in the petition. Needless to mention that writ petitions are decided on the basis of the statements on oath. If petition contains misleading or inaccurate statements or there is suppression of material facts in such a case the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in such petitions.

       The petition also contains a number of disputed questions of facts which, in our opinion, cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. On this count also petition is liable to be dismissed. During the course of hearing it was suggested to the petitioners that they should withdraw this petition with liberty is approach the Civil Court so that all disputed questions can be gone into.

       The Corporation disposed of the industrial unit of the petitioners for Rs. 100 lakhs. In other words the Corporation realised Rs. 30.00 lakhs more than the expected price which the petitioners were expecting for their industrial unit. Can it by any stretch of imagination, be said to be an imprudent or unreasonable or unfair decision on the part of the Corporation in disposing of the industrial unit of the petitioners? In our opinion, answer must be in negative. No fault can be found with the decision of the Corporation looking to the various attempts made by them to secure best price for the unit. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the respondent No. 2 faulted in any manner in taking decision to dispose of the industrial unit of the petitioners to respondent No. 2. Flawless decision making process adopted by the Corporation must result in dismissal of this petition even on merits.