Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reply averments in Writ Petition No. 2359/1989 by the respondent RFC.

13. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply to the writ petition have asserted that it was incorrect to say that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings after 27.1.1987. It has been maintained that the petitioner was always keeping a watch over the happenings with regard to the auction of his factory, and all the auctions were made after public advertisements and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the facts. It has been pointed out that the terms and conditions put to the respondent No. 3 for his offer of Rs. 1,76,000/- were not to dissuade him but were for the benefit of the petitioner himself. Regarding the offer of respondent No. 5, it has been asserted that the same was not a valid offer and he came only after finalization of the deal by the respondent and even after the letter addressed to him, he did not contact the Head Office with 10% security amount and merely continued with letters and the RFC was not required to take any action on the offer of respondent No. 5. The offer of respondent No. 4 was considered to be a genuine offer and the same was accepted. In response to Para 23 of the writ petition as quoted hereinabove, the respondent RFC has stated in its reply thus:

19. The respondent RFC in its reply has asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition, and giving out the details of auction notices, it has been submitted that at the time when the petitioner submitted his so-called offer, the matter had already been finalized at the office of the respondent No. 2 and the higher offer of Shri R.D. Sharma was accepted who raised his bid to Rs. 1.66 lacs on 19-4-1989. The bid-sheets prepared for the bids on 23-3-1989 and 19.4.1989 have been produced with the reply. Regarding the case of the petitioner, it has been pointed out that the letter sent by him did promise a higher amount but was not accompanied by the requisite 10% of the amount as security and, therefore, he was advised that he should deposit 10% security and approach the Head Office and this advise was given in view of the fact that the office of respondent No. 2 had already finalized the bid on 19-4-1989. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner felt contended only by writing letters to the Head Office and since there was no valid offer, there was no question of any consideration being given to the claim of the petitioner. It has been pointed out by the respondent RFC that it might be very convenient for anybody to come out after conclusion of the bids with higher offer which is not valid and disturbs the functioning of the respondent RFC and so also public interest; and if at all the petitioner had any interest, he should have responded to the public notified tender notices, issued three times. Regarding the offer of Shri Rani Dan Soni (respondent No. 3), it has been pointed that he had chosen to keep silence despite notice for forfeiture of his security and when asked to contact, he stuck to his old proposition of being offered the disputed factory on his terms or else the amount be returned to him, therefore, he has chosen to withdraw himself totally from the auction of the disputed factory, and the letter of the said respondent No. 3 Rani Dan Soni has been placed on record as Annexure R/4. The claim of the petitioner Shri Govind Puri has been refuted being hollow and baseless.

27. The contesting respondent Shri R.D. Sharma on the other hand has submitted a detailed application in response to the affidavit submitted by RFC. The respondent has contended that RFC had merely mentioned procedure and guidelines for revival of the unit at the hands of the original borrower. Then, the decision in earlier Writ Petition No. 326/1986 has been referred and placed on record as Annexure-R4/3 with the submissions that the said order dated 27-2-1987 has become final and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition when the prayer for redelivering the possession of the factory back in the hands of the petitioner and prayer for re-schedulement had been rejected. It has also been maintained that the answering respondent gave his bid after considering the above judgment of this Court and the additional affidavit filed by the RFC and the earlier prayer made by the petitioner would have to be considered in the light of the said decision. The respondent has submitted that there are exceptional facts and circumstances for which the general procedure and guideline as put by the RFC would not be applicable. It has been maintained that the position of the respondent No. 4 in this case is not only of a successful bidder but of a purchaser of the property from the owner of the property i.e. RFC through the agreement dated 19-5-1989 (Annexure-7 in Writ Petition No. 1841/1989). According to the contesting respondent, after ascertaining that no litigation was likely to be fastened with the unit and taking into account the valuation and outstanding, he made an offer of Rs. 1.66 lacs and the RFC cannot now back out. While referring to the reply filled by the RFC In the writ petition, it has been submitted that the RFC has confirmed the offer of answering respondent to be a genuine and valid offer without loss of words. It has been pointed out that for a period of about 22 years, the petitioner has not deposited anything against the outstanding and he came out with deposit of about Rs. 32,000/- on 24-12-2003 against some scheme. According to the respondent, the petitioner has violated the sancity of the loan agreement and had been a deliberate defaulter and, therefore, it is to be considered whether the petitioner is entitled to avail benefit of general norms prescribed under some scheme? It has been questioned that in the light of these special features and the fact that the prayer made by the petitioner for delivery of possession had been rejected by this Court, could the unit be placed with it again?