IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9994 of 2011 M/S Kiran Re-Roller’s Pvt. Ltd, a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office situated at & P.O. & District Nalanda-803111 through its Managing Director, Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, son of late Raghunandan Prasad, Resident of village & P.O. Bari Chhariari, P.S.Tharthari, District Nalanda. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Industrial Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director of Industries, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nalanda 4. The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited, Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna -800001. 5. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited, Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna -800001. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Advocate For the BICICO : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate Fore the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, A.C. to S.C.13 ---------- 15/ 30.06.3011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the BICICO’ for the sake of brevity ) and its authorities. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :- (I) For quashing of the Sale Notice issued by the Respondent-Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) published in Daily Newspaper- Hindustan on 10.06.2011 wherein it has included the sale of the assets of the petitioner Company fixing the date of sale on 30.06.2011 as 2 being wholly illegal, without jurisdiction; (II) For quashing of the order vide letter no. 255 dated 03.06.2011 by which the Respondent-BICICO has ordered for taking over possession of the assets of the petitioner and seal the same as being wholly illegal and arbitrary. (III) For a direction to the Respondent-BICICO to accept the One Time Settlement Proposal submitted by the petitioner which has been illegally kept pending by the BICICO being wholly arbitrary and illegal. IV. For a direction to the Respondent-BICICO to permit the petitioner to sell the Mortgaged Assets including the land on which the Factory has been established to enable the petitioner to make the payment of the entire One Time Settlement Amount as it is the Respondent-BICICO and other instrumentalities of the State of Bihar which have been responsible for making the petitioner Unit sick; and (V) For issuance of appropriate direction to accept the payment in reasonable installments within a period of 3 years to enable the petitioner to liquidate the entire One Time Settlement amount of the Respondent-BICICO; and for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may legally be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Small Industrial Unit at Nalanda for manufacture of M.S. Rod, Angles, Channel etc. and for the said purpose it applied 3 for grant of incentives under the Industrial Policy including the capital subsidy and generator subsidy. 4. It is also claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that it applied for grant of subsidy but inspite of running from pillar to post, the same was not granted to it. Even the working capital was not granted to the petitioner and hence after some time, the petitioner-Unit became sick and applied for rehabilitation before the Apex Committee constituted by the State Government under the Industrial Policy, 1995 for revival of sick Unit. In its meeting dated 13.01.1997 (Annexure 3), the said Apex Committee considered the case of the petitioner and observed that on analysis of financial information, the petitioner-Unit satisfied two conditions and as such the petitioner was declared as a sick Unit in terms of the Reserve Bank of India’s Guidelines and formal order of declaration of sick Unit entitled for rehabilitation was passed by the Department of Industries vide letter dated 28.02.1997 (Annexure 3A). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said circumstances, it filed C.W.J.C. No. 2876 of 2003, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure 8) observing that the petitioner was one of those unfortunates, who decided to set up an industry in this State and when it came to working capital, the Commercial Banks refused to make available the working capital finance, from where the plight and dichotomy of industrialization in this State began. It was also observed that the Unit was not only faced with the question of 4 survival but also how to meet its liabilities. It was finally observed that it was not for this Court to go into the commercial or economic aspect of the situation and only what this Court could do was to direct the petitioner to once again approach the State through the Director of Industry in the hope that in the changed scenario where the State was repeatedly promising development through industrialization as its course, might consider the matter and an industry, which died without growing up might be revived or else told to wind up but should not be kept alive on false promises and hope incurring further liabilities. 6. It is stated that in the meantime the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 8547 of 2004 before this Court for directing the BICICO to disburse the amount of subsidy. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure 12) with a direction that the credit would be given to the account of the petitioner as on 05.10.1998 and it would be treated as if this was an amount deposited in the term loan or other account by the petitioner for repayment and/or discharge of its debts with the effect that the liability of the petitioner would stand reduced by the said amount. 7. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 07.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. NO. 2876 of 2003, the petitioner filed an application dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure 9) before the Chief Secretary for rehabilitation of petitioner-Unit. The said application of the petitioner was considered sympathetically by the authorities and finally on 13.08.2008 the Director of Industries sent a letter to 5 the petitioner requesting it to send a clear proposal of rehabilitation to the Director, Department of Small Scale Industries and only thereafter the Unit would be inspected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that inspite of the aforesaid steps and inspite of several O.T.S. Schemes, for which the petitioner applied before the authorities concerned, no heed was paid to the petitioner’s repeated requests and finally the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure 17) was issued by the Managing Director of the BICICO taking over the assets of the Unit. Thereafter, the sale notice was also issued in the newspaper dated 10.06.2011 fixing the date of auction as 30.06.2011. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that it had been throughout ready and willing to comply the directions of the authorities concerned, which has been specifically found by the authorities of the State as well as other Benches of this Court in various decisions, but the authorities of the BICICO did not heed to anything and were bent upon destroying the petitioner-Unit. He further submits that the petitioner is still ready and willing to pay the entire O.T.S. dues, which was accepted by the BICICO vide order dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure 14 series) within a given time and to show its bona fide it is ready to pay Rs. 10 lacs within two weeks as it wants to revive the Unit, which is against the wishes of the BICICO. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the BICICO stated that it had accepted the One Time Settlement Proposal of the 6 petitioner sent to it in the year 2004 and an information about it was sent to the petitioner on 30.12.2004, but the petitioner neither responded nor complied the direction of the authorities and the last one time settlement scheme expired on 31.03.2011. Learned counsel for the BICICO further submits that the conduct of the petitioner has through out been unfair as after accepting the loan it has done nothing nor it paid any amount except the subsidy, which was adjusted. Even the reminders sent by the Corporation remained unheeded and unreplied. 11. Learned counsel for the BICICO also argues that it had throughout acted in accordance with law and had never violated any provision of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and was constrained to send notice dated 17.05.2011 (Annexure 16) under the provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the Act giving the total of the amount due for discharging the liability in full. He also avers that when the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice, order dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure 17) was passed by the BICICO taking over the assets of the Unit and finally sale notice was issued on 10.06.2010 (Annexure 18) with respect thereto, which are all in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the State supports the arguments advanced on behalf of the BICICO and adopts the same. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the respective arguments of the parties and the 7 materials on record, it is quite apparent that the authorities of the State as well as this Court considered the case of the petitioner very sympathetically and finally on the direction of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure 8), the petitioner approached the authorities, which again considered the claim of the petitioner sympathetically and, thereafter, vide order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure 10) they directed the petitioner to give its clear rehabilitation proposal so that proper steps could be taken in that regard after inspection etc. No mention has been made nor any document has been annexed to show that the said direction of the authorities concerned was complied by the petitioner. 14. Furthermore the petitioner applied in the year 2004 for One Time Settlement as per the scheme of the respondents and the BICICO considered the said application and vide order dated 30.12.2004 calculated the total amount payable under O.T.S. and directed the petitioner to send the supporting paper and affidavit as required under the O.T.S. Policy, 2004 along with Demand Draft/Cheques for further action. There is neither any statement nor any document to show that any step in that regard was taken by the petitioner in compliance of the said directions. 15. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent from the entire circumstances and documents that the authorities of the BICICO have taken all steps and adopted all procedures as required in law and have not violated any provisions of the Act. Hence this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the 8 impugned orders/notices under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 16. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )