C.W.P. No.14078 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14078 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:30.07.2009. Ajmer Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Financial Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. S.C.Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No.11923 of 2009 This application has been moved for early hearing of CWP No.14078 of 2005. During arguments, it transpires that in view of ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, 2003(2) Supreme Court Cases, 455, the point in issue is covered in favour of the petitioners. In view of above, with consent of counsel for both the parties, this writ petition is taken up, on board, for regular hearing. CWP No.14078 of 2005 Petitioners' grievance, in this writ petition, is that illegally recovery is being effected from them on the basis of orders passed by respondent No.3. Counsel for the petitioners states that respondent No.3 has C.W.P. No.14078 of 2005 (O&M) -2- no jurisdiction, to issue order for recovery, by invoking provisions of Section 3 of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (in short, `the Act'). To the contrary, counsel for respondent No.1 states that, at the instance of the Corporation, the recovery has rightly been ordered by respondent No.3, as per provisions of the Act. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that as per ratio of the judgment in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), this writ petition is bound to succeed. When confronted with the above said situation, counsel for respondent No.1 has failed to show anything to the contrary. In view of ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, 2003(2) Supreme Court Cases, 455, recovery cannot be ordered by respondent No.3, by invoking provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Order passed by respondent No.3, for recovery, under the Act mentioned above, is set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.1 – Corporation to proceed afresh, against the petitioners, as per law. Disposed of. July 30, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE