Orissa High Court
Mahesh Chandra Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Others .... Opp. ... on 5 April, 2021
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18815 of 2010
Mahesh Chandra Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. D. N. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and Others .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 5.04.2021 13. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This petition is restored vide order passed today in CMAPL No.65 of 2021.
3. The prayers in the present petition by the Petitioner who borrowed the loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC) but admittedly who was unable to repay, is that the letter dated 26th November, 2009 issued by the OSFC calling upon him to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.47.69 lakhs, of which Rs.10.36 lakhs was towards principal, Rs.33.96 lakhs towards interest and Rs.3.37 lakhs towards other charges, should be quashed.
4. As the impugned notice itself states, despite several demand notices and loan recall notices, no payment was made by the Petitioner. As a result, the OSFC on 21st November, 2002 was constrained to take over the possession of Petitioner's unit, which had been mortgaged in its favour under Section 29 of the Page 1 of 4 // 2 // State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('SFC Act'). The impugned notice states that if the outstanding is not paid then an auction would be held on 4th December, 2009 to dispose of the unit.
5. It appears that in the auction which was conducted, Opposite Party No.3 was the successful bidder. Even before the present petition was filed the successful bidder was handed over possession of the property in question. After the auction was concluded, the Petitioner made a representation on 28th December, 2009 which obviously could not be entertained. Almost a year after the said auction, the present petition was filed on 1st November, 2010 in which no interim order was passed although notice was directed to be issued on 15th November, 2010.
6. When the case was listed on 22nd April, 2018 the following order was passed by this Court:
"Officer of the OSFC is present.
None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
It is stated that the outstanding dues against the Petitioner is Rs.15,31,000/- and the Petitioner has not approached the OSFC authorities for settlement of the outstanding dues.
Registry is directed to give a copy of today's order to the learned counsel who is appearing for the Petitioner in order to take instruction from the Petitioner regarding the settlement of the outstanding dues."
7. The matter was placed thrice before the Lok Adalat, i.e. on 12th May, 2018, 28th July, 2018 and 18th August, 2018. On none Page 2 of 4 // 3 // of the dates the Petitioner appeared. On 18th August 2018, the Officer on Special Duty (Law) of the OSFC informed the Lok Adalat that in spite of communications being sent to the Petitioner to come forward for negotiations, there was no response.
8. When the matter was listed on 23rd March, 2021 this Court passed the following orders:
"Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to take instructions from the Petitioner on whether in order to demonstrate his bona fide the Petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.15,31,000/-, which is the amount claimed by the Opposite Party No.2, in this Court within the time granted by this Court for entertaining the writ petition.
List on 24th march, 2021."
9. On the next date the Petitioner did not appear and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
10. However, today, an application was filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner stating that he did not expect that the petition would be taken up and therefore was not able to appear.
11. By a separate order passed today in CMAPL No.65 of 2021 the petition was restored to file.
12. When a pointed question was asked to Mr. Pattanaik whether the Petitioner was willing to deposit a sum of Rs.15,31,000/- in order to demonstrate his bonafides. Mr. Pattanaik stated that the Petitioner is not in a position to make any payment. He sought to urge that the OSFC had acted illegally in putting the unit to auction in 2009.
Page 3 of 4// 4 //
13. Having examined the petition carefully and considered the submissions of Mr. Pattaniak the Court is not persuaded that any illegality has been committed by OSFC in seeking repayment of dues and taking over possession of the Petitioner's unit by invoking Section 29 of OFC Act, 1951.
14. The Court is unable to find any merit in the petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
I.A. No.2670 of 202015. The prayer of the Petitioner for return of his collateral property is also rejected.
16. The I.A. is dismissed.
17. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/K. Majhi Page 4 of 4