Writ Petition No.4579/1999
14.9.2010
None for the petitioner even in the second round.
Shri Abhishek Gulati, learned counsel for respondents.
The petitioner by way of present petition seeks following
directions:
(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call
the entire material record in possession to the
respondent corporation leading to the alleged take
over of the Factory unit by the respondent
Corporation, and advertisement for sale of the
same. So also the record of communications with
regard to restarting of the factory unit as
transpired between the parties with special
reference to M.P.E.B., MPSIDC etc. be also
summoned.
(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a unit
in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
communications (Annexure P/1 and P/2) and the
impugned newspaper advertisement (Annexure
P/3).
(iii) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent corporation to restore the possession
of the petitioners on the factory unit in question
forthwith or in the alternative return the entire
sum paid by the petitioners to the respondent
corporation with interest at the rate of 18%
2thereof from the respective dates of their payment,
until their realization by the petitioners.
(iv) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
in the nature of prohibition restraining to the
respondent corporation from crating third party
interest in the factory unit in question without
settling the claim of the petitioners.
(v) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing detailed
enquiry in the matter by an appropriate
independent authority so that erring officials be
identified and appropriate action be taken against
them.
(vi) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award an
appropriate compensation to the petitioners for
victimizations, harassment suffered by them at
the hands of respondent corporation and its
authorities/officials, and may the same be
directed to be recovered personally from such an
official/authorities.
(vii) Any other relief/reliefs that this Hon’ble Court be
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances be also granted in favour of the
petitioners.
(viii) Cost of theinstant litigation be also awarded in
favour of the petitioners.
During the pendency of this petition, this Court on
4.4.2002 passed the following order
“Petitioners may file proposal of re-schedulement of the
liabilities within ten days which may be considered
3
within four weeks and the outcome of the same shall be
informed to this Court at the time or before final
hearing. In case petitioners do not want to retain the
Unit, they may also give such an offer to MPFC which
may be considered by MPFC. MPFC is also at liberty in
case petitioners express their willingness not to
continue with the ownership of Unit in question to find
out the purchaser.”
Thereafter when the matter was taken up on 3.3.2003,
the following order was recorded
“This Court as per order dated 4.4.2002 directed the
petitioners to submit a proposal of re-schedulement of
the liabilities within ten days which was to be
considered within next four weeks by the respondents.
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for petitioners states that petitioners were not in a
position to submit any proposal as such the MPFC was
asked to proceed with the sale and find out a purchaser.
MPFC has filed an application dated 13.11.2002
pointing out that petitioners sent letter dated 18.6.2002
expressing their unwillingness not to continue with the
ownership of the unit in question. No proposal was
4
submitted within the time as envisaged in the order
dated 4.4.2002. Petitioners have claimed refund of the
amount deposited by them. The sale advertisement of
the industrial unit was published in the newspaper
dated 24.8.2002, three offers were received by the
respondents, respondents received the best offer of
Rs.20 Lacs payable on cash down basis for the plant
and machineries only. No suitable offer was received for
the industrial plot and the factory, as per report dated
27.9.2001 of the Deputy Manager (Technical) the
realizable market value of the plant and machineries of
the unit is Rs.20 lacs.
Counsel for the petitioners has no objection if the
respondents are allowed to negotiate the deal and make
the sale of the plant and machineries for a sum of Rs.20
lacs.
Statement is placed on record.
Respondents may proceed with the sale of the
unit in accordance with law.
After passing of the aforesaid order no one appeared in
the matter for the petitioner as is evident from the order sheet
dated 28.9.205. On 30.11.2005, Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned
5
counsel for the petitioner appeared and sought time to collect
the information about the status of the petitioner. Thereafter,
when the matter was taken up on 28.4.2010, it was stated on
behalf of petitioner by Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel that
the file has been misplaced from his office.
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, no one is
appearing for the petitioner.
It appears that after 3.3.2003 whereby the respondents
were permitted to proceed with the sale of Unit in accordance
with law, no substantial cause survived as would have caused
the petitioner to take interest in the matter. Moreover, by giving
permission to the respondents to sell Unit, no relief can now be
granted as is being sought in the present petition.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed having been rendered
infructuous. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE
Vivek Tripathi