01Facts
The petitioner obtained a loan of ₹4.80 lakh from the Bihar State Financial Corporation in 1985 to operate an aluminium unit.
pp. 2–4Following repayment defaults, the Corporation sold the unit to a third party, Shri Shyam Nandan, for ₹30 lakh and handed over possession.
pp. 2–4In an earlier writ petition, the High Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Corporation with a repayment proposal but did not set aside the sale or direct restoration of the unit.
pp. 2–4The petitioner later sought settlement under the 2019 One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme and submitted a bank draft for ₹1,21,000; the Corporation rejected his representation by order dated 25 March 2019.
pp. 2–4He challenged that rejection and sought restoration of the unit.
pp. 2–402Issues
i.Whether the Corporation’s rejection of the petitioner’s representation under the 2019 OTS Scheme warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
pp. 5–7ii.Whether the petitioner could use the present proceedings to reopen the completed sale or obtain restoration of the unit, despite the earlier order and the purchaser’s third-party rights.
pp. 5–703Law Applied
The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226: interference is not warranted unless the challenged decision is shown to be illegal or inconsistent with the applicable directions or law.
pp. 5–7The earlier order required the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s repayment proposal on its merits and in accordance with law; it did not set aside the auction sale or confer a right to restoration.
pp. 5–7An OTS application, by itself, does not create an enforceable right to recover an asset already sold to a third party.
pp. 5–7The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.
pp. 5–704Reasoning
The earlier writ order had left the sale undisturbed and required only consideration of the petitioner’s proposal.
pp. 5–7The Corporation considered the representation and rejected it; the petitioner did not establish that the rejection violated the earlier directions or was otherwise illegal.
pp. 5–7Nor could the petitioner relitigate the completed sale through a challenge to the OTS decision, particularly when the purchaser—whose rights could be affected by restoration—was not impleaded.
pp. 5–7The OTS application and accompanying draft did not confer a right to restoration of the unit.
pp. 5–705Holding
The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, finding no sufficient ground for interference with the Corporation’s order dated 25 March 2019.
p. 7It dismissed the writ petition and directed that any pending applications stand disposed of.
p. 7Original Court PDF
M/s Ramesh Alumunium IndustriesvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
