IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4508 of 2010 M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE B-2 MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD PATNA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL CHIEF SHRI ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE KAPILDEO SINGH, R/O UDAI GIRI APARTMENT, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER DRT, 396, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA 2. BIHAR RAJ JAL PARISHAD, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA. ---- 02 16.03.2010 The petitioner is Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO), a Government of India undertaking, which had granted certain loans to the Bihar Raj Jal Parishad, a State Government undertaking. The State Government undertaking defaulted in honoring its commitments. Ultimately, HUDCO, who is a designated financial institution approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bihar, Patna vide O.A. No.47/2004 for recovery of its dues by two proceedings. In those proceedings, the State Government undertaking appeared and filed its written statement and thereafter took an objection that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the matter may be referred to a High Powered Committee, as the dispute was inter se between the two State organizations. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that Apex Court in all the judgments have dealt with cases as between either as a State unit and another State unit or a Central Government unit Vs. the Central - 2 - Government unit. It, therefore, had directed constitution of a High Powered Committee by the Central Government or the State Government in that relation. But, here is a dispute where Central Government undertaking is in dispute with a State Government undertaking and State itself is a guarantor. It stands that it will not subjugate itself to a State Committee where the State’s interest is involved. Considering the matter, in my view, as two State organizations are litigating, the matter must first be resolved by High Powered Committee, as considered by the Apex Court. The question remains as to the constitution of High Powered Committee and its jurisdiction. In my view, a just and proper solution would be that the High Powered Committee constituted by the Central Government in relation to such matters would be the competent committee to decide or take initiatives for resolving the dispute. There could not be any dispute raised with regard to the Central High Powered Committee, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner is a corporate entity. I, therefore, direct that in keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Chairman Central Board, Direct Taxes & Another since reported in (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 431, the parties should move the High Powered Committee constituted by the Central Government for resolution of all its disputes depending upon the final determination by the said committee. The proceedings before the DRT, as initiated by the petitioner, would be kept in abeyance and would abide by whatever - 3 - directions that may be given by the High Powered Committee. All disputes between the petitioner and the respondent-Bihar Raj Jal Parishad and the State of Bihar would be considered by the said High Powered Committee and appropriate decision would be taken in that matter. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)