A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner Sri Bharat Bhushan Pal who appears on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents no.1 to 3. Perused the record.
(2.) Briefly stated the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Kanpur (UPSIDC) (in short the Corporation) executed lease dated October 30, 1982 in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. D-18, Site IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad measuring about 2264 sq. yards approximately for the purpose of setting up a small scale unit. Copy of the lease deed is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is pleaded that the petitioner paid money Rs.56,600/- with interest to the Corporation prior to the execution of the aforesaid lease deed. The petitioner mortgaged the said plot with the Corporation for constructing building in order to establish the proposed industry (small scale unit). By the time boundary wall etc. were constructed, the Corporation cancelled the lease by giving notice dated 20.7.83. In para 6, the petitioner has stated that the said notice dated 20.7.1983 was never tendered or served upon the petitioner at the appropriate time and thus he had no opportunity to justify and satisfy the Corporation about the progress and development of the unit. In para 9 it is stated that while the petitioner has again resumed the construction after receiving the fund, the petitioner received the impugned order of cancellation of his lease and re-entry vide order-dated 25.2.1987, Annexure-II to the writ petition.
(3.) Without entering the other contentious issues, para 6 of the writ petition has not been denied. Further the petitioner sought amendment to the writ petition and vide amendment para 36-C it has been stated that the said order dated 25.2.1987has been passed without opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. By the amendment which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 15.9.1998 (See order on the amendment application No. 32195 of 1998) a relief was also sought to the effect that " issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 25.2.1987 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 1.12.87 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition)." The aforementioned impugned order finds mention in para 9 and para 36-A (incorporated by way of amendment). It is considered before us that the pleadings to the effect that the impugned order was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing has not been controverted. The counter affidavit sworn by Sri R.P.N.L. Srivastava on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that no counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit was filed, to the amendment application or to the newly added para 36-C referred to above. In view of the categorical averment which has been made by the petitioner that no opportunity was given before canceling the lease dated 1.12.1987, (Annexure-13 to the writ petition), the same is a nullity inasmuch as the valuable right of the petitioner was taken away.;