D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Mishra, holding brief of Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd., the respondent No. 1 and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing the District Magistrate/Tehsildar, Kanpur, the respondent No. 2. No body appears for the respondent No. 3. On the strength of the recovery certificate dated 13th March, 1980, a copy whereof is Annexure '11' to the petition, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the 'Recovery Act' a sum of Rs. 5,78,000/ - is being recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners question this recovery in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties and documents field in support thereof are these: By means of an application dated 30th January, 1971 the petitioners approached the respondent No. 1 for supply of Mixing Mill and Hydraulic Press Machine for their industrial establishment under hire purchase scheme. Alongwith their application, they also submitted quotation for the purchase of machinery from M/s. Sohal Machinery Sales Agency, Bombay which is the sole agent of M/s. Sohal Engineering Works, Bombay. The proposal of the petitioners was accepted by the respondent No. 1. However, the petitioners by means of their communication dated 4th September, 1972 requested the respondent No. 1 to place the order for the supply of machine from M/s. Barangore Metal Castings Co., Calcutta, the respondent No. 3 according to fresh quotation submitted by them. On inquiry from the respondent No. 1 for their reasons for the change of the supplier, the petitioners gave reasons through their communication dated 19th October, 1972 and insisted that the machinery be purchased in accordance with their desire.
(3.) IT would be opposite to notice at this stage that alongwith their application, the petitioners had submitted a declaration, a photo copy whereof is available on record as Annexure 'C.A. -4' to the counter affidavit. Clauses 3 and 7 which are material for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy are reproduced below: 3. That I/we have ensured about the quality and workability of machines applied for, and that we will not involve J.P.S.I.C. in any dispute between the supplier and ourselves. 7. That the machine being according to my/our choice and desire and having been selected at my/our instance, if I/we shall of my/our own return the machine to the Corporation during the period of operation of this agreement, the Corporation shall be entitled to sell the machine by private auction or by any other means at its discretion, and if the resale value of the machine falls short of the Hire Purchase price less the installments (excluding interest on installments) paid by me/us, the resultant loss shall be made good by me/us by paying the amount to the Corporation within thirty days of demand. Thus, on their application, according to their desire and choice and keeping in view the declaration given by the petitioners they were supplied the machinery by the respondent No. 3.;