Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
The intra Court appeal has been filed as against order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Single Bench, whereby S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 4447/1996 filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. Earlier, the appellant had filed another writ petition bearing number S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1058/1990, which was decided by the Single Bench on 17.11.1992 Though, in that writ petition, Respondent No. 3, Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited(hereinafter referred to as ‘RIICO’) and Respondent No. 2, Punjab National Bank(hereinafter referred to as ‘PNB’) were parties, but the appellant confined the relief as against Respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Financial Corporation(hereinafter referred to as ‘RFC’) only and abandoned the similar relief, which was prayed as against RIICO and PNB. The Single Bench disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 17.11.1992 As the appellant was considered to be a potentially viable sick(SSI) unit, it was ordered that in case Rs. 1,00,000/- is paid by the appellant-petitioner to RFC within four weeks and the appellant undertakes to pay the rest of the amount as may be determined, the possession of the unit be handed over to the appellant and the appellant shall enter into the fresh agreement with the RFC. It was further ordered that in case the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not paid within four weeks, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Single Bench, the appellant preferred D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 16/1993 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 06.07.1993 The grievance of the appellant in that appeal was that RFC had not taken a decision to advance loan for rehabilitating the industry, when it is one of the prime duties of the financial institutions to help in revival of a sick unit. It appears that before the Division Bench, notices were not issued to RIICO and PNB and only RFC was represented. It was submitted that as RFC did not advance loan for rehabilitating the appellant-industry, it was submitted that direction be issued to RFC/PNB/RIICO to provide the financial assistance in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the order passed by the Single Bench, the Division Bench of this Court ordered that no mandatory direction can be issued. Simply, an observation was made that in case the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by the appellant and possession of unit be handed over to the appellant, the financial institutions will consider the case of the appellant as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
As a matter of fact, similar relief prayed for against RIICO and PNB had been abandoned by the appellant before the Single Bench in previous writ petition and they were not represented before the Division Bench, no direction has been issued by the Division Bench against them. Simplicitor, an observation was made, which carries the case of the appellant no where. The dispute with RFC has been settled, possession of unit had been handed over and account has been settled.
Fresh writ petition was filed by the appellant, in which prayer has been made to direct the respondents to rehabilitate and revive the unit of the appellant by their joint efforts, providing all the benefits and concessions as provided under the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time; to restrain the respondents from making any recovery of all dues till the revival of the sick unit of the appellant and thereafter to insist upon payments as per the revival scheme jointly implemented by the respondents. Prayer has also been made against RIICO to recover cost of land @ Rs. 1.30 per sq. meter or at the most Rs. 3.50 per sq. meter as originally offered to the appellant and accordingly to settle the account of the appellant without charging any penalty or interest or service charges over and above the rates specified above. Damages have also been claimed, as specified in Schedule ‘D’ of the writ petition. However, it is conceded that similar prayers were made against the respondents RIICO as well as PNB in the previous writ petition. PNB has not found it feasible to advance the loan to the appellant considering past record.
The Single Bench has held that since the relief against RIICO and PNB was abandoned in previous writ petition filed by the appellant before the Single Bench itself and RIICO and PNB were not issued notice by the Division Bench and simply, an observation was made that financial institutions should consider the case of the appellant as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant is not entitled to file fresh writ petition for the same relief, which was abandoned by the appellant in previous writ petition. Reliance has also been placed by the Single Bench upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, AIR 1987 SC 88, wherein it has been held that even in the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, principles contained under Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and once similar relief has been abandoned in the writ petition, it is not open to the appellant to file fresh writ petition praying for the same relief.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that fresh proposal for rehabilitation of the unit was submitted before the respondents, but the same has not been allowed. As the appellant is a potentially viable sick unit, rehabilitation package be ordered. Prayer has also been made to direct the RIICO to reduce the rate, at which the allotment was made to the appellant.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that no case is made out, as the relief against the RIICO as well as PNB had been abandoned by the appellant in the previous writ petition before the Single Bench and said writ petition was pressed only against RFC and dues of RFC have already been settled.
After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that no case is made out, so as to make any interference in the intra Court appeal. Earlier similar relief had been prayed by the appellant against RIICO and PNB in the previous writ petition, which was abandoned before the Single Bench itself and this fact is not disputed. As the appellant had abandoned the relief against RIICO and PNB, hence, it could not have preferred fresh writ petition for the same relief. The Single Bench has rightly dismissed second writ petition relying upon case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra). Dues of RFC have already been settled by the appellant. Possession of the unit has been handed over to the appellant, which is not in dispute.
With respect to relief against RIICO, it had been abandoned in previous writ, as such question cannot be reagitated. Counsel was unable to show how such a relief can be granted. It is submitted that proposal for financial assistance for rehabilitation of the unit was submitted by the appellant, which was not found feasible by the Bank. Earlier, a civil suit was filed by the Bank against the appellant, which was dismissed in default. However, the fact remains that amount due has not been paid by the appellant. Thus, considering the past track record, it was not found feasible to accept the rehabilitation proposal submitted by the appellant. No fault can be found in the stand of PNB.
It is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is ready to submit fresh rehabilitation proposal, which may be ordered to be considered by the respondents. However, counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has submitted that in case any fresh rehabilitation proposal is submitted by the appellant, that will be considered on its own merits. We refrain from issuing any direction in this regard and place the submission made by counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank on record and the same will not give any right to the appellant to approach this Court again with respect to the relief, in case proposal is rejected as it had been abandoned by the appellant in previous writ petition. In these circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in the appeal.
With the aforesaid observations, the intra Court appeal stands dismissed.
No costs.