O.P.Saxena, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamous directing the respondents to register the petitioner as a Glass Unit as Small Scale industrial Unit and treat it on identical footings regarding the allotment of coal wagons. There is a further prayer for quashing the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the Director of Industries, Kanpur (Annexure 5).
(2.) Parties have exchanged affidavits and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission.
(3.) The first controversy in this case as to whether the petitioner gave the application dated 27th November, 1973, Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is a photostat copy of the application dated 27th November 1973 given by the petitioner. It was received by Sri S- S. Saxena of the officer of the Assistant Glass Technologist to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Firozabad. It is not disputed that Sri S. P Saxena used to receive such applications. The respondents contention is that Sri S.S. Saxena was transferred from Firozabad and after his transfer, he received some applications fictitiously in a back date. The reason advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that had the applications been received by Sri S. S. Saxena in due course of business, it would have been noted in a diary and would have gone through the usual process. If Sri S.S. Saxena was negligent inasmuch as he did complete other formalities, it does not necessarily follow that the received the application in a back date. It is also probable that the received the application of a 30th November but was negligent in not completing the formalities. The real position could be known only after a departmental enquiry. The learned Standing Counsel could not tell if any explanation of Sri S. S. Saxena was called for and any disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him for having received the petitioners application in a backdate. Sri S. S. Saxena continues to be a Government servant and if he has committed an act of gross misconduct, disciplinary action should have been taken against him. If Sri S. S. Saxena received some applications in a back date, there can be no presumption that he also received petitioners application in a back date. The presumption under the law is that he received the application on the date its purposes to have been received. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the Annexure to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, we find no merit in the contention that the petitioner gave no application prior to the ban imposed by Director of Industries on registration of new Units in the year 1974. We held that the petitioner gave the application for registration as a Glass Unit on 30-11-1973.;