Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4140 of 2010 Petitioner :- Serv Shree Baba Amarnath Industries Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Agrawal Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing
the order dated 27.11.2009 by which representation of the petitioner has been
rejected. Petitioner has made an application to Deputy Regional Marketing
Officer, respondent no.2 praying for certifying the strength of the machines
for running the Rice Mill. Petitioner had earlier came to this Court and this
Court by its order dated 12.11.2009 disposed of the same with the direction to
the respondent no.2 to decide the representation. The representation has been
decided by the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 rejecting the claim. It has
been stated in the order that against one M/s Jaiswal Rice Industries, there is
an award for recovery of Rs. 64 lacs and odd . The goods and the property of
M/s Jaiswal Rice Industries has been mortgaged with the State. It has further
been stated that proceeding for execution of the award has been initiated
before the District Judge, Pilibhit. The reason given in the order is that M/s
Jaiswal Rice Industries to save themselves from the liability has initially
constituted a firm M/s Shiv Traders and now the same property is being given
to the petitioner for running the rice mill on lease.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in accordance with section
65A of Transfer of Property Act the mortgagor had right to lease out the
property. Be as it may, even if the mortgagor had right to lease out the
property, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the liability
of Rs. 64 lacs and odd is already there against the property and steps are being
taken for recovering the amount awarded, we do not find any error in the
decision of respondent no.2 refusing to grant certificate to the petitioner to
enable him to run the rice mill. The property which is mortgaged and sold
property and which has been let out to the petitioner has liability is attached,
the decision of the respondent no.2 cannot be said to be perverse or without
any valid cause . No ground is made out to interfere in the order. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
Sh