O.A No. 6 of 2005 · Gauhati High Court

Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused t he relevant documents annexed to the writ petition including the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, dated 31.01.2008 passed in O.A. No. 6/2005. Upon going through the records, according to this court, the petitioner failed t o make out a prima facie case even to issue a notice to the respondents. Moreso, when any person takes loan from any financial institution including the financi al institution like the respondent No. 1, then the loanee is liable to pay the l oan amount as per terms and contract. However, it would not proper to this court to make any observation on the recovery prayer for one time settlement of the p etitioner in the instant case as that would affect the interest of the petitione r as well as respondent financial corporation, it would meet justice if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh repr esentation to the respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HUDCO al ongwith the order within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 2 shall pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner alongwit h certified copy of this order and till the disposal of representation of the pe titioner, the respondents shall not proceed with any auction sell of the propert y belonging to the petitioner as mortgaged with them. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. As the instant order is passed in absence of the respondents, the respondents ar e at liberty to approach this court either for modification, alteration or cance llation of this order, if so advised.