Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.M.G. Asghar, for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. These two writ petitions, raising common question of facts and law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The Writ Petition No.1952 of 2011 is treated as leading writ petition and for deciding the issues raised, it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings in the leading writ petition.

4. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the recovery certificate dated 26nd March, 2002/22nd July, 2010 sent by respondent No.4 to the Collector, Ghaziabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,43,57,761.68. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents not to make recovery of the amount in dispute from the petitioners and its guarantors by adopting coercive method.

5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are being finally decided.

6. Brief facts, which emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; petitioner No.1 is a registered company, which established its factory for manufacture of goods at district Ghaziabad. The company took loan from the respondent No.4 (Pickup, the Pradeshiya Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, U.P.) and other financial institutions. The company had approached the respondent No.4 for grant of term loan of Rs.4 crores for manufacture of flexible laminated packaging and co-excluded multilayer films in two phases. The loan of Rs.2,32,00,000/- was disbursed. The petitioner No.1 submitted an application before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the B.I.F.R) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 1985 Act). The reference was received in the Board on 6th December, 2001. The recovery certificate dated 26th March, 2002 was sent by the respondent No.4 to the Collector, Ghaziabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,43,57,761.68 from the guarantors of the loan, namely, Manish Goel (petitioner No.2), Piyush Goel son of S.C. Goel, Ritu Goel wife of Manish Goel, S.C. Goel son of late Raman Lal Goel and Vijay Goel wife of S.C. Goel. The petitioners' company was declared as sick unit under the 1985 Act. The I.D.B.I. was appointed as operating agency by order dated 25th August, 2005. Petitioners' case is that the proceedings before the B.I.F.R. are still pending. The Collector vide his endorsement dated 22nd July, 2010 forwarded the recovery certificate to Tahsildar, Ghaziabad for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. The writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery certificate dated 26th March, 2002/22nd July, 2010.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the writ petition, made following submissions:-

(i) The recovery certificate issued for recovery under the provisions U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) is without jurisdiction since after the enforcement of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act), the recovery of dues of a financial institution can be made only in accordance with the 1993 Act as Section 18 of the 1993 Act bars any other proceeding for recovery.

(ii) The petitioners' company having been declared as sick unit under the 1985 Act, recovery proceedings under the 1972 Act are barred by virtue of Section 34 of the 1985 Act. The respondents being participating in the proceedings before the B.I.F.R. where the preparation of rehabilitation scheme is under process, the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to resort to recovery proceedings under the 1972 Act.

(iii) The proceedings before the B.I.F.R. being pending, the recovery both against petition