CWP No. 12199 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12199 of 2011 Date of decision July 14, 2011 M/s Boparai Agro Industries ....... Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner's contention is that in terms of directions given by this Court in CWP No.19007 of 2002, the petitioner is entitled to the subsidy from the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This amount has been marked to be credited to the PFC account for loan availed by the petitioner. The grievance is that the loan is outstanding to the tune of 7.54 lacs and if the subsidy which the petitioner is entitled to receive from the State for 6.64 lacs is released in favour of the first respondent only an amount of 90,000/- will be payable but the Finance Corporation is resorting to an action for sale under the SFC Act for the entire amount of loan. A right of recovery from the subsidy is an independent right which cannot be tacked on to the enforceable right of a CWP No. 12199 of 2011 2 creditor to recover what is due under the provisions of the Act. It is a grievance of the petitioner that the property is being valued at 7 lacs and brought out for sale which is grossly undervalued. Undervaluation cannot also be a ground prior to the actual sale by an intervention through a writ petition. The petitioner's remedy shall be to secure proof of such value before the authority which is bringing the property to sale and secure approximate reliefs in accordance with law. In Mahesh Chander Vs. Regional Manager Financial Corporation (1993) 2 SCC 279, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines about sale shall be conducted and method of redressal. In Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Micro East Rubber & Allied Products (1996) 5 SCC 65 the Supreme Court held that the scope for judicial review shall be confined, in matters of proceedings under Section 29 of SFC Act only to two situations 1) where there is a statutory violation or 2) where the SFC has acted infairly. There is no basis or material placed on record to make such an inference to make a judicial intervention. In Amar Alcohol Ltd. Vs. Silcom Ltd (2006) 1 SCC 199 the Supreme Court rejected the plea of inadequacy of price as a justification for setting aside a sale, when there were no materials to substantiate such a plea. 2. The writ petition, insofar as it seeks for the relief of quashing the proceedings for putting up the property for sale by the first respondent for reserve price of 7.5 lacs is declined and the petition is rejected. The petitioner is only entitled to a favourable consideration of the release of the subsidy from respondent Nos.2 and 3 in terms of the judgment in CWP No.19007 of 2002 titled Balak Gases Oxygen Gas Plant and another Vs. State of Punjab and others. The petitioner is entitled to make a representation on the basis of this order and when such a representation is filed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take a decision within a period of six months and the decision shall be taken by the respondents CWP No. 12199 of 2011 3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14 , 2011 archana