HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6740 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2011 **** Smt. Prem Sharma . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab Financial Corporation & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. AP Setia, Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the Recovery Certificate dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P4) passed by the Managing Director-cum-Specified Authority under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. (2). Besides several contentions, it is the conceded position that the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of the impugned recovery certificate though she is directly affected by the same. Similarly, the Specified Authority has not taken into consideration the judgement dated 07.01.1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in Civil Application No.29 of 5.8.1978 (sic). CWP No.6740 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation fairly states that the judgement passed by the Civil Court appears to have some material bearing on the issue involved. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent that the impugned recovery certificate (Annexure P4) is quashed with liberty to respondent No.2 to issue a fresh recovery certificate, if so required, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the above-mentioned judgement. (4). Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. 30.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge