CW 4142/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4142/2010 Sultan Singh Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 29/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing Notice dt.10/03/2010 served upon petitioner U/s 32(G) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (“SFC Act”). It appears from the record that even after legal notice U/s 32-G of SFC Act on 20- 21/11/2000 (Ann.4) was served disclosing outstanding dues of Corporation to the tune of Rs.7,20,351/- as on 01/03/2000, no objection thereto was ever raised by petitioner; and what has been impugned in the instant petition is the notice dt.10/03/2010 sent to the petitioner to make recovery as computed U/s 32-G of SFC Act as arrears of land revenue. Counsel submits that State Financial Corporation sanctioned loan of Rs.2.20 lacs for purchase of the vehicle (Trucks) under deed of mortgage/Hypothecation executed on 22/07/1987 but since there was a theft committed, FIR was registered on 04/12/1998 (Ann.1) but the police submitted final report (Ann.2) which was accepted by ACJM Sri Madhopur vide order dt.18/02/2000 (Ann.3); and in changed circumstances, neither the vehicle CW 4142/10 //2// remained with the petitioner at the same time, notice has been issued for making recovery from him about outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue, which is causing great hardship. What has been urged by Counsel in the opinion of this Court is without substance for the reason that the vehicle being insured and if at all theft was committed thereof, petitioner was at liberty to avail of remedy under the law but as regards loan sanctioned by respondent Corporation, if it was not paid, certainly after its due computation, legal notice U/s 32-G of the SFC Act, was served upon petitioner way back on 20/11/2000 on which no care was taken by him to settle outstanding dues and only thereafter the notice under land revenue Act has been served on 10/03/2010 (Ann.5). Legal notice U/s 32-G of SFC Act was served only after dues duly computed by competent authority towards loan sanctioned upon having remained unpaid, in the absence of notice U/s 32-G being challenged in appropriate proceedings, recovery notice issued under land revenue Act is nothing but a consequential action for making recovery of outstanding dues computed by Corporation U/s 32-G. This Court finds no substance to entertain this petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 4142CW2010Mar29DsRFC.doc