IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA C.W.P No. 848 of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.04.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Krishan Dayal ….Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Financial Corporation and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 2 & 3: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Financial Corporation in ordering recovery of the dues purportedly outstanding from him. The recovery was sought to be effected under the provisions of HP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given a chance of being heard by the Managing Director of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation before issuing the recovery certificate and the Principles of Natural Justice have been violated. From the pleadings, I find that there is no compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice before issuance of the recovery certificate. This Court in Raj Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 others, Latest HLJ 2005 (1) 501 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others (2003) 2 SCC 455 has held that no recovery can be effected without first complying with the provisions of Natural Justice i.e. giving an opportunity to the person affected, of being heard and to put forth his case. The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that recourse could not be had by the Financial Commissioner for recovery of dues under the H.P. Public Moneys (Recover of Dues) Act, 1982. For this, he places reliance on two judgments referred to above, which hold that recovery can only be made under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Learned counsel Mr. Ajay Sharma contended that the Act is not applicable to the facts in the present case as the amount is below Rs. 10,00,000/- This point does not require any adjudication for the reason that according to reply filed by the Financial Corporation, the amount due is Rs. 19,69,194/- on account of term loan and Rs. 3,99,481/- on account of soft loan. Thus in all an amount of Rs. 23,68,675/- is claimed by the Financial Corporation. If that be so, it is but obvious that two decisions referred to above would apply. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. This would not preclude the Financial Corporation from recovering the amount due from the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs. April 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge