Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
1. Petitioner, a registered Small Scale Industry Unit, engaged in manufacture of plywood and other related items, decided to avail a term loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for setting up a unit at Fatwah Industrial Area to enable it to go for commercial production. The loan by the Corporation was sanctioned on 22.3.1980. A registered mortgage deed was executed in favour of the Corporation on 27.8.1980 and the working capital was sanctioned by Canara Bank on 31.5.1985, though belated as alleged by the petitioner.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that the Unit did go into production and even supplies were made to various persons but the unit ran into certain difficulty unforeseen. To over come the financial short fall, the petitioner approached the Corporation for sanction of Soft loan to the extent of 12.65 lakhs for rehabilitation. Many correspondences had been made, some money released but some essence which emerges from the pleading is that when the inspection of the Unit was made by the respondent Corporation, the Unit was not found to be functional and no activity worth noting was being carried out.
3. In the above background a notice under Sections 29 and 30 of the State Finance Corporation's Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as SFC Act) dated 22.2.1994 contained in annexure 20 came to be issued against the petitioner. The notice lays down the complete narration of events as well as the various loans and money which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner's Unit but the same had been of no avail. To protect the interest of the Corporation the notice came to be issued.
4. Petitioner has challenged the notice under Section 29 of SFC Act and seeks its quashing and also wants a direction upon the respondent Canara Bank to release the margin money which was sanctioned in favour of the Unit by the Corporation way back on 15.10.1988 and also payment of interest thereon.
5. Submission of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that as a welfare State and as per the directive principle it was the duty of the Financial Corporation to come to the aid and assistance of the Unit to facilitate its commercial production and financial viability. As adequate and timely release of fund was not made by the respondent Financial Corporation and the Bank, therefore, it was due to negligence and latches on the part of the respondents the petitioner has been driven to the present state and now they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mistake or wrong. In this regard attention of the Court has been drawn to many a communication which has been made between the parties where the true state of affairs had emerged.
6. The Respondent Corporation and the Bank have entered appearance. They have filed detailed counter affidavits and justified their actions. In fact, they have tried to controvert the stand of the petitioner by asserting and bringing materials on record to show that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to successfully execute the project in time and to make it a functional and profit making Unit.
7. In so far as the stand of the Canara Bank is concerned, they do not deny that the margin money of Rs. 2,36,980/- was released by the Corporation and it was duly credited to OCC account of the petitioner by Fatwah Branch in the month of November/December, 1988 itself. The said margin money was kept in then KDR (Kamdhenu Deposits Scheme) of the Bank and over draft limit was extended to the petitioner by the Bank against the security of Kamdhenu Deposits. Subsequently when the petitioner failed to overcome the liability, the Bank was forced to adjust the maturity amount of KDR against the outstanding liability of the petitioner. Petitioner is unnecessarily raising a boggy as if the margin money has been misappropriated by the Bank illegally. The bank in its counter affidavit has also stated that the steps taken by the bank of which the petitioner is making a grievance now is totally misplaced because the document which has been brought as annexures to the counter affidavit itself shows that the step was taken on the written instruction of the petitioner, which he may have forgotten now.
8. The Court has gone through the stand of the Bank and perused the annexures. The Court does not find any wrong doing on behalf of Canara Bank in this regard and the petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any direction upon the bank to return the so called margin money.
9. Coming to the stand of the Corporation they have categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been continuous defaulter. The Corporation has tried to rehabilitate the Unit by offering rehabilitation package which was worked out and fully implemented. There has been an object failure on the part of the petitioner to take advantage of the liberal assistance rendered to the Unit and ultimately when the Unit failed to pay back the installments, the authority had to invoke the power under Sections 29 and 30 of the SFC Act.
10. There is substantial material in support of the stand taken by the respondent Corporation. No doubt many explanations have been sought to be offered by the petitioner for his failure to meet the obligation of the financial institution and in fact, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously tried to put the blame on the door of the respondent Corporation, but this Court is least impressed by such a stand because for more than ten years the Unit had not shown any remarkable performance. If there was failure of entrepreneurial skill on the part of the petitioner to manage his affairs then the Court cannot come to his rescue merely because he has been a prolific letter written to the various authorities. The Court is also not impressed by legal submission or the explanations for his failure to meet the obligation of the respondent Corporation and therefore, would not like to interfere with the action which has been initiated against him which is otherwise in accordance with the statutory provisions.
11. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.