MEKASTER TELEMATICS LTD. Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF U.P. LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the aforesaid writ petitions are connected and have been heard analogously, the same are being decided by this common judgement and order having binding effect upon both the writ petitions.

(2.) SO far as the first writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2995 of 2005) is concerned, the petitioner herein, namely, M/s Mekaster Telematics Ltd. (hereinafter in short called as the 'company') has filed this writ petition for the purpose of quashing all the steps taken by the respective respondents in pursuance of the notice dated 15th April, 2004, by which the Managing Director and concerned Regional Director of the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (hereinafter in short called as 'PICUP'), being respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, have already auctioned the immovable property situated at C-294, Sector 10, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh being factory premises of the company. A further prayer has been made for quashing of any transfer of such property in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 or any other person deriving title through them. In addition thereto, it is further prayed that the respondent no. 4 be directed to return the possession to the company and for quashing of the recovery proceedings against the company or its guarantor or Director under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Act, 1972').

(3.) THE respondent no. 5, auction purchaser, has taken the plea that auction sale has been confirmed in his favour and he has paid the price and is in possession of the property in dispute. A detailed order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 08th May, 2008 after hearing the parties by postponing the hearing and awaiting the result of the reference made by the Supreme Court on account of conflicting decisions on the point of interpretation of Section 22 of the SICA. This order has not been challenged by either of the parties. The matter has, thus, become final to the effect that till such time as the matter is not resolved or decided by the Supreme Court, the case would not be heard. This is a binding order between the parties and it is well settled by the Supreme Court that resjudicata applies at subsequent stages of the proceeding. Thus, the matter can not be heard unless the order dated 08th May, 2008 is recalled, reviewed or modified. There is no application for recalling or review of that order. Both the Hon'ble Judges, who passed the order, are available, hence, for recall or review the matter is to be placed before that very Bench under the Rules of the Court. So far as the procedure is concerned, it has been said that there is a complete procedure provided under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter in short called as the 'UPZA and LR Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter in short called as the 'UPZA and LR Rules') to file the objections against the auction sale before the Commissioner of the Division, wherein the property is situated. Thereafter, aggrieved party has been given right to file revision. It has also been contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to such proceedings. There is no averment in the writ petition why the normal statutory remedy will not be followed by the company. The company has suppressed such fact that there is an alternative statutory remedy. No explanation has been given by the company to come to this Court belatedly. There is no whisper in the writ petition as to what was he doing after the confirmation of sale. Approach to this Court has been made after a period of eight months after the confirmation of sale. The company has also not challenged the sale of plant and machinery for sum of Rs. 1.57 lacs, which has taken place on 28th March, 2003 i.e. about two years earlier to the filing of the writ petition. There is no factory or company, which could be rehabilitated and, therefore, SICA is not applicable. BIFR has ultimately rejected the application for registration under Section 22 of SICA. The company has filed an appeal wherein the arguments have been heard and the judgement is reserved. The company has not brought any stay order before this Court nor is there any stay order, to the best of knowledge of the respondent no. 5. He further contended that it has also been held by the Supreme Court in JT 1995 (5) SC 474 (U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow Vs. The State of U.P. And others) that when the matter in issue is pending before the higher Court, the High Court should not decide the question and the best course is to relegate the parties to a normal remedy which is provided under the statutes. Even after the finalization of this proceeding under the statute, there is a regular remedy for filing the suit, where all the questions disputed or otherwise can be gone into and an effective decision can be obtained. Hence, the writ petition/s is/are liable to be dismissed.