- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the following prayer has been made : (a) A Writ order or direction in. the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated 25.3.1993, (Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition). (b) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to realise any amount till the finalisation of one point settlement of the parties. (c) Any other Writ, order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.
(2.) Allegedly the Respondent No.1 U.P. Financial Corporation assured the petitioner to extend its full assistance and cooperation in setting up an Industry of Rice Mill. It was further assured that the Financial Cooperation extended by the respondent No. 1 shall be repayable in easy instalments and that too after establishment of the Mill. Further it was agreed that 25% of the total cost of the Mill will be invested by the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly invested Rs. 3.75 lakhs in that process. The term loan of Rs. 10lakhs was sanctioned on 4.2.1984 on furnishing full details of the Building Construction, Plant, Machinery etc. by the petitioner firm, which was assessed at Rs. 16.80 lakhs. After that, the application for power connection was made by the petitioner in 1983, but till today, he has not got, the power connection. The agreement between, the parties was executed on 16.12.1985. Properties of the petitioner were mortgaged/hypothecated in favour of Respondent NA. 1. The loan was repayable in 5 instalments within a period of 9 years after a lapse of 2 years gestation period. Ultimately the petitioner also invested about Rs. 7 lakhs from loan funds. The entire amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to the petitioner by 22.7.87 after deducting the interest calculated on the principal amount. The petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for releasing working capital. The petitioner started the rice mill with the help of the steam engine to which he was paid Rs 1.64 lakhs as additional loan.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 put a lock on the, factory on 6.3.1990 without issuing any demand notice. On 6.2.1992 it was agreed between the parties that if the petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/- by March, 1990, the respondent Corporation would reschedule the loan. The petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 16.3.1990 through a cheque and again on 17.3.1990 he paid Rs. 70,000/- by means of another cheque and thus after the payment of Rs. 1 lakh aforesaid, the petitioner mill was unlocked and the possession was delivered to it on 22.3.1990. The petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/- by cheque on 5.6.1990. Again on 11.12.90, the respondent Np. 1 put a lock on the Mill of the petitioner causing huge financial as well as reputation loss to the petitioner. He paid Rs. 50,000/- on 2.11.90 through a cheque and another Rs. 50,000/- was paid by it through a cheque thereafter. Then the lock was removed on 2.11.90 and possession was given to the petitioner. Due to these vindictive acts of the respondents, the petitioner suffered huge financial losses in its business.;