JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 17160 of 1989 and Civil Writ Petition No. 789 of 1990 filed by the firm and the partner, respectively in respect of recovery certificate issued by the Haryana Financial Corporation to recover its dues in respect of the loan advanced to the firm.
2. The firm was advanced loan on the basis of registered mortgaged deed dated 24.1.1975. The firm did not pay the loan amount as per the terms agreed and, therefore, the Haryana Financial Corporation initiated proceedings under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). The said petition was decreed on 7.1.1980. But on 17.9.1987, the Corporation issued a Recovery Certificate under Section 3 of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Act) against the firm and the partners. The said recovery certificate is subject is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that once the Corporation has initiated proceedings under Section 31 of the 1951 Act, it is not permissible for the Corporation to proceed under the 1979 Act and, therefore, the recovery certificate issued under the said Act is illegal.
4. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has produced the official record in support of his argument that a conscious decision taken by the Corporation to abandon proceedings under Section 31 of the 1951 Act and to proceed under Section 3 of the 1979 Act. Relying upon A.P. State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. , it is contended that the Corporation has a right to elect its remedy. The Corporation has a right to take possession of industrial unit under Section 29 of the Act, to recover the amount due under Section 31 of the 1951 Act as well as another statutory remedy under Section 3 of the 1979 Act, therefore, the Corporation had elected its remedy to proceed under the 1979 Act and as such, the action taken by the Corporation in issuing the recovery certificate, cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that in the event of multiple remedies being available to the Corporation, it is open to the Corporation to elect its remedy. It is, thus, open to the Corporation to abandon proceedings initiated under Section 31 of the 1951 Act and to seek its alternative remedy under Section 29 of the 1951 Act or under Section 3 of the 1979 Act or any other statutory remedy available. Therefore, the mere fact that proceedings under Section 31 of the 1951 Act were initiated at one point of time, will not be sufficient to debar the Corporation from proceeding under Section 3 of the 1979 Act, after abandoning earlier proceedings. However, learned Counsel for the respondent could not dispute the fact that the proceedings under the 1979 Act were initiated without issuing any Show-Cause Notice or granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
6. In view of the said fact, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent-Corporation to serve a Show-Cause Notice upon the petitioners and to grant them an opportunity of hearing before determining the amount due and payable by the petitioners in terms of the 1979 Act or in accordance with any other remedy available to it. If after hearing the borrower or its partners any amount is found due and payable to the borrower or its partners, the same shall be computed and necessary steps taken in this respect within three months. But if the petitioners are found liable to make any payment, it shall be open to the respondent-Corporation to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the same in accordance with law.
7. It may, however, be clarified that any sale effected in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued earlier, shall not be affected by this order only for the reason that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioners.