- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal and Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Sri Naresh Pant, Advocate fore respondent No. 1. Sri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 They are heard on admission.
(2.) PETITIONER Jagannath Patra has filed this writ petition for the follow ing reliefs : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice issued under section 29 of the U. P. State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 dated 25th April, 2000 (Annexure No. 9) as well as the notice 'dated 23rd October, 2000 (Annexure No. 12) issued for taking over the physical possession over the house/khasra plot No. 141 min. and 142 min. private plot No. 3 measuring 3 biswa (1047 sq. ft.) situated at Village Manpur Uttar Pradesh, Rampur, Haldwani, District Nainital. II. Issue a writ, order or direction declaring the entire proceedings initi ated pursuant to the notice issued under section 29 of the U. P. State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 as null and void. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 1 to restore the possession of the unit/factory premises to the petitioner or the present valuation of the factory may be determined by a valuer appointed by this Hon'ble Court and there after the outstanding of U. P. F. C. as on 25th August, 2000 the date of possession of the unit be deducted and rest of the amount be paid to the petitioner along with the title deed of the residential house of the pe titioner. IV. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. V. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. " The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the proceedings ini tiated by respondent No. 1- U. P. Financial Corporation against the petitioner under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The partnership firm of the petitioner in the name and styled of Star Minerals was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs only) by respondent No. 1-Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation on 18th January, 1999. The loan amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- was to be released in favour of the pe titioner in instalments. During the pendency of the loan, the partnership firm-Star minerals-was dissolved on 14th October, 1999 and it was reconsti tuted on 20th October, 1999.
(3.) PETITIONER Jagannath Patra before filing this writ petition had filed another writ petition [which came to be registered as Writ Petition No. 677 of 2001] for the following reliefs : " (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order/tender/public notice dated 29th June, 2001 passed by the re spondent which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to first sell the property of Star Minerals and if necessary after disposing off the property of the said Star Minerals to dispose the security land and building after demanding the remaining amount if any due on the petitioner; (c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to give effect to the impugned order/tender/public notice dated 19th June, 2001 issued by the aforesaid respondent; (d) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) To award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. " Writ Petition No. 677 of 2001 (M/b) came to be disposed of finally with the following order on 1st December, 2006 : "in view of the fact that the sale deed has already been executed which is a registered document, the same cannot be quashed in a writ peti tion moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the remedy lies in Civil Court for seeking a relief to declare the sale deed null and void. The petitioner may avail the remedy by way of filing a suit on the pleadings which have been raised in the writ petition and in the amend ment application. However, on account of pendency of the writ petition, if some delay is occurred, that shall be taken into account for condonation of delay. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. ";