( 1 ) THESE cases are heard together since the question arising for decision in all these is identical. Certain provisions of Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. 1979 (for the sake of convenience we refer to the Act thereafter in brief as the Recovery Act) are challenged by the petitioners in all these petitions under Art. 296 of the Constitution of India. The Recovery Act is passed by the Gujarat Legislature and as its preamble shows is an Act enabling speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to the State Government Corporations Financial Corporations Companies and nationalised or other banks. The Bill having been reserved for the assent of the President received such assent on 15/05/1979

( 2 ) SEC. 3 of Act 17 of 1979 is the main provision in the Act. That enables recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue. The procedure for such recovery is prescribed in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of sec. 3 and sub-sec. (3) bars any suit for recovery of such dues in a civil court. Sec. 3 particularly sub-secs. (1) and (2) thereof is under attack in these petitions and the attack is mainly on the ground that it confers arbitrary power of recovery and also on the ground that it goes beyond the legislative competence of the State.

( 3 ) THE Gujarat State Financial Corporation (in short GSFC) is a Financial Corporation for the Gujarat State constituted by the State Government by notification in the official gazette under sec. 3 (1) of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 The Parliament which has enacted that law envisages establishment of such State Financial Corporations and on such establishment such Corporation would be a body corporate by the name notified under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal with power subject to the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act to acquire. hold and dispose of property and to sue and be sued in that name. The authorised capital of such State Financial Corporations is to be made up of fully paid up shares issued to the State Government Reserve Bank Development Bank scheduled banks insurance companies investment trusts co-operative banks or other financial institutions and other parties the last being not to exceed 25 per cent of the total number of shares.

( 4 ) IT is the recovery of dues on account of default ill payment of the loan advanced by the 1st respondent the Gujarat State Financial Corporation to the petitioners that has caused resort by the petitioners to this Court by way of challenge to the recovery process. It may not be necessary to refer to the facts of all the cases. We refer to the facts in Special Civil Application No. 781 of 1981. The petitioner-firm is engaged in manufacture of Ceramics at Piplodi in Himatnagar District. In order to set up the industry and to carry on the business operations the petitioner-firm had approached the 1st respondent-Corporation and a loan of Rs. 3 67 0 had been sanctioned to the petitions-firm as evidenced by letter dated 9/11/1972 Annexure A. Pursuant thereto relevant documents were executed and a sum of Rs. 1 67 0 was advanced from time to time. Annexure A sets out the repayment schedule. Admittedly the petitioner was not able to make repayments in accordance with the said schedule. This according to the petitioner was on account of the shortfall in production consequent on acute coal shortage.

( 5 ) ON the petitioners default to repay a notice was issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation to the petitioner Annexure B proposing to take action under sec. Z9 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 That section enables the Financial Corporation in case of default to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern which is under liability to the financial Corporation. It further enables the Financial Corporation to transfer by way of lease or sale and realise the property pledged mortgaged hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation.

( 6