Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cellulosix Ltd. And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 November, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.25769 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 25.11.2013
Cellulosix Ltd. and another
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.A.S. Narang, Advocate for the petitioners
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) The petitioners seek to impugn the Public Notice dated 9.11.2013 in terms whereof the unit of the petitioners is sought to be put to sale by a process for inviting bids which are to be opened tomorrow.
The complete case of the petitioners is based on 93rd Minutes of Meeting of the Project Approval Board (PAB) held under the chairmanship of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this behalf, has drawn our attention to the decision taken at Item No.4 which reads as under:-
"Item No.4 of 92nd meeting of PAB - Any other item with the permission of the Chair:
The Project Approval Board discussed the progress made by PAIC, PFC and PSIDC regarding appointment of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) for recovery of their stake invested in its promoted/assisted companies. It was decided that to affect recoveries, a One-time settlement policy may be introduced by each corporation so that the maximum amount is recovered by all the three corporations from its loan and equity portfolios. Thereafter the remaining portfolio may be transferred Chand Parkash 2013.11.25 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25679-2013 -2- to ARC. Simultaneously, all the three aforesaid corporations shall expeditiously appoint an Asset Reconstruction Company. Department of Industries & Commerce, Punjab shall coordinate and supervise the bid process for appointment of ARC's by all three corporations."
It is his say that in pursuance to the aforesaid decision, the PSIDC even prepared a draft OTS Policy, though the PFC has kept silent. He, however, submits that this Policy has still not been finalised as the State Government wanted certain changes and wherever loans are financed jointly by PSIDC and PFC such a policy be made applicable.
The petitioners have also placed on record the orders issued by the President of India to contend that all proposals for selection of private financial collaborators, technical collaborators and to accord approval to terms and conditions of collaborations in respect of projects to be undertaken by these State collaborations shall be considered by the PAB.
Insofar as the facts of the case are concerned, it is not in dispute that the unit of the petitioners constructed with the finance availed of in the year 1984 did not take off and there were alleged losses which resulted ultimately in proceedings under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951. These proceedings were sought to be stalled by the petitioners by filing a civil suit at Civil Court, Sangrur and the matter came to an end only with the dismissal of the RSA in July- 2003. The unit was taken over in the year 2004-2005 and since then also the petitioners have not cleared the loan. It has not been set out whether the unit was put to auction, the methodology and how many times, though the petitioners have to be fully aware of these facts as they claim to have been approaching the financing entities for the settlement. Chand Parkash 2013.11.25 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25679-2013 -3-
In our view, the case in this petition has been set up on a wrong premise as if there is a mandate to the different financial corporations including PFC arising from Item No.4, extracted above. A reading of the Item itself shows that what was of concern to the PAB was the amounts lying blocked and, thus, it was reviewing the progress qua appointment of Assets Reconstruction Company (ARC) for recovery of stocks. However, before this recourse is adopted (the transfer of debts on discounted value), it was proposed that a One-time Settlement Policy "may" be introduced by each Corporation to maximize the amounts recovered from loan and equity portfolios.
It is trite to say that the petitioners cannot seek a mandamus for making an OTS Policy. The OTS Policy is not yet in existence. A notice to auction the assets taken over of the petitioners cannot be postponed merely because the possibility of having an OTS Policy was being examined and that too not at least by the PFC at present.
We see no reason to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
Dismissed.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
25.11.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash
2013.11.25 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document