Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


P.L. Khosla v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. - WRIT - C No. 3795 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 10799 (3 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




P.L. Khosla


U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others.




Heard counsel for the petitioner Sri Bharat Bhushan Pal who appears on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents no.1 to 3. Perused the record.

Briefly stated the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Kanpur (UPSIDC) (in short the Corporation) executed lease dated October 30, 1982 in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. D-18, Site IV, Industrial  Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad measuring about 2264 sq. yards approximately for the purpose of setting up a small scale unit. Copy of the lease deed is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is pleaded that the petitioner paid money Rs.56,600/- with interest to the Corporation prior to the execution of the aforesaid lease deed. The petitioner mortgaged the said plot with the Corporation for constructing building in order to establish the proposed industry (small scale unit). By the time boundary wall etc. were constructed, the Corporation cancelled the lease by giving notice dated 20.7.83. In para 6, the petitioner has stated that the said notice dated 20.7.1983 was never tendered or served upon the petitioner at the appropriate time and thus he had no opportunity to justify and satisfy the Corporation about the progress and development of the unit. In para 9 it is stated that while the petitioner has again resumed the construction after receiving the fund, the petitioner received the impugned order of cancellation of his lease and re-entry vide order-dated 25.2.1987, Annexure-II to the writ petition.

Without entering the other contentious issues, para 6 of the writ petition has not been denied. Further the petitioner sought amendment to the writ petition and vide amendment para 36-C it has been stated that the said order dated 25.2.1987has been passed without opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. By the amendment which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 15.9.1998 (See order on the amendment application No. 32195 of 1998) a relief was also sought to the effect that " issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 25.2.1987 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 1.12.87 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition)." The  aforementioned impugned order finds mention in para 9 and para 36-A (incorporated by way of amendment). It is considered before us that the pleadings to the effect that the impugned order was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing has not been controverted. The counter affidavit sworn by Sri R.P.N.L. Srivastava on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that no counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit was filed, to the amendment application or to the newly added para 36-C referred to above. In view of the categorical averment which has been made by the petitioner that no opportunity was given before canceling the lease dated 1.12.1987, (Annexure-13 to the writ petition), the same is a nullity inasmuch as the valuable right of the petitioner was taken away.

Learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that giving of opportunity could have been of no avail inasmuch the petitioner has committed breach of terms. Be that as it may it is the petitioner who could have placed the relevant defence before the Corporation to persuade it not to cancel the lease and take the extreme action and that the impugned order dated 1.12.87, (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is a nullity and cannot be sustained.

In the result the impugned order dated 1.12.1987 and consequently the impugned notice dated 25.2.1987, (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside with liberty to the respondents to take fresh action and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Subject to the above observations the writ petition is allowed provided the petitioner still holds the plot in question and that is still in possession of the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order. No order as to costs.    




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.