IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1896 of 2006 SUBODH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE NAGENDRA SINGH, PURCHASER OF M/S GALAXY ENTERPRISES, BELA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P.S. VISHWAVIDYALAY, DISTRICT DARBHANGA……………………...PETITIONER Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA THORUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, PATNA 3. BRANCH MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, MITHILA BRANCH, NEW INDL. ESTATE BELA, DARBHANGA……….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s Manik Vedasen, and Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate with R.Giri, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Bihar State Financial Corporation and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash order dated 06.08.2005 by which the Branch Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation raised a fresh demand of Rs.2,29,854.00 against the petitioner by revising calculation retrospectively and to direct the Corporation to issue no dues certificate and execute a final sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 3. The claim of petitioner was that although in sale order dated 16.02.1996 (Annexure-2) the rate of interest was mentioned as 18.5 per cent per annum, but the loan account opened for the said purpose was with interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum and accordingly the petitioner - 2 - paid the entire amount of loan with interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum. It was also stated that subsequently letter dated 06.08.2005( Anneuxre-6) was issued by the respondent to the petitioner informing that as per the revised calculation a sum of Rs.2,29,854.00 was recoverable against loan account till 28.02.2005 and that was due to the calculation of interest made at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in 1991-92 the rate of interest was 13.5 per cent per annum and by standing order of the Board dated 10.01.1992 it was decided that the rate of interest in case of sale of units in default shall not be increased hence subsequently neither any interest structure was changed by respondent nor office order of the Managing Director dated 25.05.1995 (Anneuxre-R/1 to the counter affidavit) regarding enhancement of interest can be held to be legal in view of the standing order of the Corporation which is not shown to have been withdrawn. He also states that in similar cases of the said period interest has been charged by the Corporation at the rate of 13.5 per cent, but in the instant case the respondents are adopting discriminatory attitude. He relies upon a decision of Jharkhand High Court in case of Sudist Narain Thakur vs. Bihar State Financial Corpn. and others, reported in A.I.R. 2004 Jharkhand 91 in which office order of the Corporation had been quoted and it was held that in the matter of trading and business activities of the Public Enterprises, the immunities and - 3 - privileges possessed by the Government Companies or Corporations are subject to fundamental rights and in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy and the contract entered into by such Enterprises, Companies and Corporation shall not be unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable and opposed to Public Policy. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have passed the impugned order illegally which requires to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the sale order dated 16.02.1996 (Annexure-2) clearly mentions that the interest would be at the rate of 18.5 per cent per annum against which the petitioner filed a letter before the respondents authorities on 17.04.1996 (Annexure-R/2) for changing the rate of interest from 18.5 per cent to 13.5 per cent. However, the said request was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 24.05.1996 (Annexure-R/3), but the said rejection was never challenged and the assets were handed over to the petitioner on 31.03.1998 but the petitioner paid the loan amount only with interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent and hence the Corporation issued letter dated 06.08.2005 (Anenxure-6) for payment of balance amount providing a calculation chart. He further submits that the rate of interest keeps changing from time to time and the documents annexed as Annexure-10 and 11 to the writ petition are of subsequent periods which cannot be relied in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also avers that - 4 - this is not a case where the calculation is reopened after several years rather this is the case in which the calculation has been made as per the sale order dated 16.02.1996 (Annexure-2) itself which is the basis of the claim of petitioner. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the rate of interest mentioned in sale order dated 16.02.1996 (Annexure-2) was 18.5 per cent and the petitioner objected to it by way of sending his letter dated 17.04.1996 (Annexure-R/2) for changing the rate of interest from 18.5 per cent to 13.5 per cent and the said request of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities vide reply dated 24.05.1996 (R/3) directing that the rate of interest would remain as 18.5 per cent per annum. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had two choices either to challenge the said rejection before an appropriate authority or to go on paying the loan amount with interest at the rate of 18.5 per cent. The petitioner did not challenge the said rejection of his request nor paid interest at the rate of 18.5 per cent per annum, rather he went on paying interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum. In the said circumstances, the respondents authorities were quite justified in calculating the amount due and intimating the petitioner to pay the same. 7. So far the standing order of the Corporation dated 10.01.1992 (Annexure-5) is concerned, it merely shows that the Board of Directors had decided not to increase the rate - 5 - of interest in case of sale of units in default, but the said standing order cannot be legally held to be continued for infinity, whereas the sale order in the instant case is of the year 1996 in which the rate of interest was clearly mentioned as 18.5 per cent which was although objected to by the petitioner but after rejection of his objection no step was taken by the petitioner. Hence the legal presumption would be that the said rate of interest fixed in the sale order had attained finality and the Corporation was quite justified in making calculations on its basis. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)