Pathak, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, M/s. Prakash Pottery Industries, obtained a loan from the Uttar Pradesh Government for developing its pottery industry. A deed of agreement dated March j 5, 1966, was executed between the peti tioner and the State Government. It required the petitioner to apply the loan for purchasing machines for its j pottery industry within a period of one year and provided for repayment of the loan with interest in installments. Then followed the provisions: "10. If any of the installments afore said shall be in arrears in whole or in part, the whole sum, then remaining due to the creditor under the deed on ac count of principal and interest shall thereupon become payable at once and the borrower will be liable to pay the same.
(2.) FOR the consideration aforesaid and in further pursuance of the afore said agreement the borrower hereby grant and transfer by way of simple mortgage to the creditor, all that pro perty described in the schedule here to to the intent that the said property hereby mortgaged shall remain and be charged by way of simple mortgage as security for the repayment to the cre ditor of the said principal money and interest in accordance with the cove nants herein contained. It is hereby agreed and declar ed that in case of default in payment of instalments of loan and its interest, interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum shall be payable, on the such outstanding sum as may become due under the covenants hereinbefore con tained, or in case of breach of any of the conditions by the borrower here in contained the creditor may rea lise the sum to be declared by the said District Magistrate as then due to him on account of this loan as arrears of land revenue by sale of the property hereby given in security without the intervention of Court or any other pro perty of the borrower or in addition, or in the alternative, forthwith enforce against the said property hereby mort gaged or any part thereof all or any of the remedies of the holder of a simple mortgage."
(3.) IT appears that on the ground that the petitioner had failed to com ply with the terms of the agreement proceedings for recovery of the amount as an arrear of land revenue were ini tiated and on February 14, 1968, the Tehsildar attached the mortgaged pro perty. Thereafter on May 27, 1968, the property was sold by auction. Before the sale could be confirmed, the peti tioner filed the present writ petition. It was amended subsequently and in its present form it prays for the quash ing of the notice of demand, the at tachment and other consequential pro ceedings.;