Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned certificate dated 15.10.1998 (Annexure No. 6) issued by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and forwarding letter dated 24.10.1998 (Annexure No. 6 -A) issued by respondent No. 2 and recovery notice dated 5.6.1999 (Annexures No. 5 and 5 -A) issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner in relation to recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,14,642 plus Rs. 2.00 with its all consequential effects throughout whatsoever with immediate effect. The petitioner has also prayed for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents (i) not to recover the alleged amount of Rs. 3,14,642.39 contained in the recovery certificate as well as recovery notice from the petitioner either in cash or by way of making attachment of his movable and immovable property and selling the same in the auction proceedings, (ii) to decide his representation dated 9.8.1999 contained in Annexure No. 7 and 7 -A to the writ petition, and (iii) to refund the amount of TDR/Fixed Deposit Amount of Rs. 50,000/ - with the interest at the present bank rate accrued thereupon for last several years and further to pay the commission and loss suffered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs due to non -performance of the contract No. 12 dated 16.11.1991 (Annexure No. 7 -A) by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioner has further prayed for withdrawal of the recovery certificate dated 15.10.1998 and recovery notice dated 5.6.1999 with its all consequential effects. The fact inter -alia relating to the writ petition are that in the year 1984 the petitioner was appointed as an authorised dealer by respondent No. 1 and an agreement was executed containing the terms and conditions of the business agreed to be carried on between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. On 22.9.1995 respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice and on 16.10.1995 a legal notice was issued to the petitioner whereby a sum of Rs. 1,19,619.05 and Rs. 1,95,021.34 total Rs. 3,14,640 -39 were shown due against the petitioner. On 23.11.1995 petitioner submitted his reply to the demand notice and the legal notice through his lawyer. A recovery certificate was issued on 15.10.1998 by respondent No. 1 to the Collector/Dy. Commissioner, District Mumbai through the Collector Kanpur Nagar which was forwarded by respondent No. 3 through its letter dated 24.10.1998. On 5.6.1999 respondent No. 3 issued recovery notice to the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs. 3,14,642.39 plus Rs. 2.00 in pursuance to the recovery certificate dated 15.10.1998. The petitioner on 19.8.1999 filed his representation before the Manager Marketing to the department of respondent No. 1 annexing therewith a copy of contract No. 12.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the matter arises out of a contract of dealership by which the petitioner was appointed as an authorized dealer and an agreement had been entered into between U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited and M/s. Maheshwari Brothers. The relevant clauses of the agreement are set out hereinbelow: 3. That the Corporation shall supply the goods to the Dealer at their ex -mill price exclusive of excise duty and any other taxes imposed from time to time. But endeavour shall be made to affect supplies in time but the Corporation shall not accept any liability for unforced delay in dispatch of goods or inability to supply the goods ordered by the dealer for reasons beyond its means. 4. That the goods will be supplied on the terms and conditions of the sales contract from time to time, read with the conditions contained herein provided that in case of inconsistency between the two, the provisions of this contract shall prevail.;