Patna High Court
Koshi Refinery vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995PAT129, AIR 1995 PATNA 129, (1995) 1 PAT LJR 460 (1995) 1 BLJ 428, (1995) 1 BLJ 428
Author: Ashok Kumar Ganguly
Bench: Ashok Kumar Ganguly
ORDER Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. This matter should be disposed of at the admission stage and I do so by passing the following order:
2. This writ petition was filed with the following prayer:--
"(i) Respondents 1 to 4 be directed to enhance the allotment of Slack Wax from 10 Metric Tonnes to the petitioner or alternatively if the respondents are not in a position to allot the required quantity of Slack Wax, the respondents be directed to grant permission to the petitioner to import it and for that necessary permission be given to him.
(ii) The auction sale notice contained in Annexure-7 of this writ petition with regard to the petitioner unit be quashed.
(iii) Respondent No. 5 he directed to accept the payment with simple interest only and to charge the amount as stated above till the quota of Slack Wax is enhanced.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled under law in the facts and the circumstances of the case."
3. In so far as the first prayer is concerned relating to enhancement of the allotment of Slack Wax from 10 Metric Tonnes, this Court is of the view that now there is no restraint imposed on the import of Slack Wax inasmuch as the same is a decanalised item as would appear from the facts mentioned in the letter of Ministry of Petroleum and N.G. dt. Jan. 18, 1995 handed over to this Court by the learned counsel for the India Oil Corporation Limited. The same has also been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot legitimately make any grievance so far as the first prayer is concerned.
4. However, this Court further records that in the event of the writ petitioner's making a prayer for allotment of Slack Wax from the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited either at Patna or at its regional office at Calcutta, the learned counsel Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee, appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, assures the Court that, subject to the availability of the aforesaid material, the said prayer will be favourably and expeditously considered.
5. In so far as the petitioner's dues payable to the Bihar State Financial Corporation (respondent No. 5) is concerned, the only grievance which the Court can take into consideration is an alleged lack of grant of opportunity raised in paragraph 32 of the writ petition inasmuch as in the said paragraph it has been stated that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make payment or to rearrange the instalments, the petitioner's unit has been put up for auction sale.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed in this Court on their behalf and also the fact that the dues of the petitioner with principal and interest comes to Rs. 17.94 lacs as on 28-2-1993. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the facts and figures detailed in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. This Court is not in a position to go into the vortex of accountancy and cannot decide whether the said amount stated in the counter-affidavit of respondent Corporation is due from the writ petitioner or not. In the absence of necessary expertise, this Court should not go into those questions.
7. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. U. P. Financial Corporation reported in AIR 1993 SC 935. The Supreme Court has considered the said judgment in a subsequent decision in the case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1435 in which the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that in a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, "a writ Court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably." After saying so, the Supreme Court has further pointed out whether the Financial Corporation is acting unfairly or unreasonably cannot be decided by the High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction and it cannot "sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Corporation and seek to correct them." The Supreme Court has also used a word of caution by saying that "doctrine of fairness evolved in administrative law was not supposed to covert the writ Courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities." In paragraph 13 of the said judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme Court considered its previous judgment in the case of Mahesh Chandra (AIR 1993 SC 935) (supra) and came to the conclusion that in the said judgment the finding of the Supreme Court that the Corporation was not acting reasonably was "on the facts of that particular case" and the learned Judges of the Supreme Court said that the said judgment is of no help in the subsequent decision, namely, M/s. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Limited (AIR 1993 SC 1435) (supra). There is another subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court dt. 22-11-1994 in the case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Limited, reported in (1994) 7 JT (SC) 551 : (1995 AIR SCW 354). In paragraph 21 (of JT): (Para 130 of AIR) of this judgment about the scope of interference by Courts in respect of the actions of the Corporation it has been clearly observed by the Supreme Court as follows:--
"However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by, and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable."
8. In view of this latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court about the scope of judicial review of this Court and Article 226 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the activities of the Corporation, this Court feels, as the actions of the said Corporation cannot be called mala fide it is unable to interfere in the present case.
9. This Court, however, gives an opportunity to the petitioner to make an elaborate representation before the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation. Fraser Road, Patna stating therein in details its case of repayment of loan, its difficulties in the matter of such repayment giving all details in respect of its case within a period of four weeks from today. If such a representation is made within the period as aforesaid, the Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to hear in person either the petitioner and/or his authorised representative within two weeks thereafter and pass a feasoned order on or before 31-3-1995. The loan ledger in respect of the petitioner, if demanded, may be made available to the petitioner/representative in the said personal hearing. This Court does not make any observation on the case of either party.
10. The respondent Corporation will not take, in the meantime, any further coercive action. It is open to the Corporation to proceed in respect of its rights under the said Act on the basis of the reasoned order it may pass.
11. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.