PALOK BASU, RATNAKAR DASH, JJ.

( 1 ) PETITIONER M/s. Krishna Rice Mills through its partners Arun Kumar. Smt. Prakashwati Devi widow of late Krishna Prasad and Smt. Bina Devt wife of Ashok Kumar have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the State Bank of India, Siswa Bazar Branch, maharajgaunj. hereinafter referred to as the Bank through the recovery certificate sent for collection as arrears of land revenue to the revenue authorities impleaded as opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 in this writ petition. Opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 are the Industry Officers presently not connected with the dispute in issue.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition was filed on 27. 10. 1999, the respondent bank was permitted to have from the petitioners a deposit by cash or by bank draft of the sum of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 [rupees three lacs only) if paid on or before 30. 11. 1999 and also permit the petitioners to file a fresh term of proposal for payment of the remaining amount. The recovery certificate indicates that the petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs. 10,42. 987. 00 (Rupees Ten lacs forty-two thousand nine-hundred eighty seven only) in which interest upto 19. 1. 1999 was included.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners have deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3 lacs in pursuance of the interim order dated 27. 10. 1999. However. it is also not in dispute that the petitioners representation/ rehabilitation proposal has not been considered by the Bank inspite of the observations existing in the aforesaid interim order of this Court.

( 4 ) SHRI Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length. Shrl Satish chaturvedi for the Bank and Shrl R. K. Saxena. standing counsel for the recovering official and other state officials have also been heard. Since the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage as prayed.

( 5 ) THE principal argument advanced on the last occasion as reiterated today is relating to the applicability of the provisions contained in the U. P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1973 (for short the Act) to the present facts of the case. It is strongly contended by Shrl Saxena that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are not attracted towards the petitioners as they took only a "cash credit facility" from the bank and never took any loan or advance or grant for getting financial assistance under any "state-sponsored scheme. " Reliance has been placed on the division Bench decision of this Court in C. M. W. P. No. 953 of 1997, Anupam Sari Centre and others v. Collector, Padrauna and others, decided on 3. 11. 1998. There is no doubt that the said decision has concluded on the facts arising in those cases that those petitioners borrowed amounts from the bank which was not backed up by any "state-sponsored scheme. " On this analogy, a finding has been recorded that unless the money advanced to the petitioners was shown to be under any State-sponsored scheme, it was not open to the bank in those cases. to recover the amount from those petitioners. The aforesaid ruling is not available to the petitioners in the instant case, Anupam Sari was confined to the facts, the decision emerged on those facts and circumstances and reasoning set out in the said decision should be confined to those facts. Suffice it to say that, there is no warrant for the proposition that the adjectival clause set out in the beginning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. have to be read and connected with last words "under a state sponsored scheme. If a close look is had to the language used in clause (b), which is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the starting words "to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him" is a clause sufficient to include the petitioner and. therefore, the proposition "or" appearing thereafter creates another contingency which is "relating to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document