HIMMAT MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of notices Annexs. 9 and 10 issued by the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short, to be called "the Corporation" hereinafter) for auction sale of the industrial units qua the unit of the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS of the case narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased an old factory from the Corporation for a sale consideration of Rs. 11.01 lakh and paid Rs. 3.5 lakh. The Corporation, however, did not clear the old dues of the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam department towards electricity bills which were in tune of about Rs. 1.75 lakh, therefore, no new electricity connection was provided by the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam and, in the absence of that, the petitioner was not able to start and run the factory. The petitioner has advanced contention that inspite of repeated requests the Corporation did not clear the old dues of the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam as per the State Government policy. Since the outstanding amount of the sale consideration was not deposited by the petitioner, the Corporation took possession of the factory and now, the Corporation is auctioning the factory despite the facts that the Corporation authorities had informed the petitioner that notices were sent to him in routine as to all defaulters and, therefore, he need not worry and the matter with regard to old electricity dues was being proceeded with.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it is specifically stated that all the allegations levelled by the petitioner are totally false. In fact, after purchasing the said unit initially he made payment of Rs. 3,30,000/ - and, thereafter, only Rs. 20,000/ - were paid by the petitioner on 22.03.2005 towards the first instalment; but, thereafter, till today, no instalment was deposited by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the contract which he entered into with open eyes with the Corporation. It is contended by the respondents that despite notices issued to the petitioner, he paid no heed and while adopting delay -tactics, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating wrong facts. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.