Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act is not violative of the principles of natural justice as it provides sufficient guidance to the officer concerned as to when he should resort to the remedy provided by it.

M.S.LIBERHAN, J.

1. The petitioner-Company challenged the recovery of loan amount by way of arrears of land revenue. A loan of Rs.15.65 lacs was sanctioned on 27/03/1984 which was repayable in fourteen half-yearly instalments. The petitioner started the project but because of rise in prices of the machinery, it ran into difficulties. The petitioner failed to meet the demand for re-payment of the loan. A certificate for recovery of the loan amount was issued in pursuance to which the collector, Bhiwani attached the industrial unit of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said recovery in a civil suit and further sought an injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the amount. Temporary injunction was granted subject to conditions imposed by the learned trial Court, which order was affirmed in appeal. However, it was pointed out that the suit was being withdrawn as a preliminary objection was raised that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The failure to repay the loan was attributed to the apathy and inaction of the Haryana Financial Corporation and it was stated that the unit had become sick because of the attitude of the Financial Corporation.

2. The petitioner challenged the vires of S. 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act. It was urged that the recovery certificate had been issued without hearing the petitioner and had an opportunity been given the petitioner would have satisfied the Corporation for not adopting such a harsh method. Reference to the other provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act was made. The main challenge to S. 32G of the Act is that the Authorities could issue a certificate for recovery of amount for arrears of land revenue to the Collector under S.32G without providing an opportunity of hearing or notice to the industrial concern. S. 32G as introduced in the Act by Central Act 43 of 1989 reads as under :

"32G: Recovery of amount due to the Financial Corporation as an arrear of land revenue which any amount is due to the Financial Corporation in respect of any accommodation granted by it to any industrial concern, the Financial Corporation or any person authorised by it in writing in this behalf may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to it, and if the State Government or such authority, as that Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied, after following such procedure as may be prescribed that any amount is so due, it may issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue."

3. The writ petition was filed as far back as on 16/08/1989 and recovery was stayed. A number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to settle the matter. Finally, on 5/02/1990, the counsel for the petitioner wanted time to approach the Financial Corporation for making arrangement for payment. It was made clear that in case no arrangement was made by 3/03/1990, the stay of recovery shall stand vacated. In spite of that, another opportunity was afforded but nothing substantial happened.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and contended that the recovery was being effected under the provisions of S.3 of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 and no action was being taken under S. 32G of the State Financial. Corporation Act. The U.P. State provided under S. 3 of the U. P. Public Moneys. (Recovery of Dues) Act, l965 (25 of 1965) which is almost pari materia with the provisions of S.3 of the Haryana Public Moneys, (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, a mode for speedy recovery of the dues, the vires of which were challenged almost on the same ground, viz., that the remedy is discriminatory.

5. In the Director of Industries, U.P. V/s. Deep Chand Agarwal, AIR 1980 SC 801, their Lo