- (1.) THIS writ petition was filed in the year 1998 challenging the order dated 3.8.1998 passed by the Deputy General Manager, U.P. Finance Corporation, Kanpur whereby the application of the petitioner for rehabilitation of his industrial unit under a scheme of the State Government was turned down. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to rehabilitate the sick unit of the petitioner pursuant to various orders passed in this regard.
(2.) THE petitioner which was registered as a small scale industry with the Directorate of Industry under the sole proprietorship of Shri Harbeer Singh was granted a loan by the respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.95,000/ - for establishing and running the aforesaid industrial unit. The contention of the petitioner is that against the sanction of Rs.95,000/ - only about Rs.91,000/ - were provided to the petitioner as loan. Even for this the petitioner was harassed in several ways. On account of non -cooperation of the respondents, the industrial unit could not be run successfully and, therefore, an additional loan of Rs.2 lakhs had to be taken but on account of disconnection of the electricity connection and non -supply of coal and for various other reasons attributable to respondent no.2 and other respondents, the unit ran into losses. An application for rehabilitation of the unit was submitted by the petitioner under a scheme of the State Government and various orders were issued for appropriate consideration of the same but the respondent no.2 and its officials kept sitting over the matter and did not rehabilitate the petitioner's unit thereby adding to the miseries.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of the Court to a report submitted by an agency of the State Government to show that the reason for sickness of the petitioner was non -cooperation, deficiency in service and harassment by the respondent no.2 and its officials. The contention is that the petitioner's unit is entitled to be rehabilitated by the respondent no.2 and other respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the reasons mentioned in the impugned order are sustainable in view of the documents filed along with the writ petition, especially the sick unit report dated 30.10.1985, contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3, on the other hand, submitted that after taking loan, the petitioner did not refund a single penny and he was not able to run the unit successfully nor he paid the electricity dues on account of which the electricity supply was disconnected. The financial institutions were/are not ready to extend any financial assistance to the petitioner as the unit has become unviable.;