M/S R.R. International vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 916 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7724 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S R.R. International
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- H.M.B. Sinah,Prashant Kumar
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Narayana
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.

Counter affidavit to the modification application filed today, be taken on record.

Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhruv Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7.

By this application, the respondent no. 7 has prayed for clarification/modification of the order dated 15.2.2011 passed in writ petition.

In the application, it has been stated that the petitioner in the writ petition got first two reliefs deleted and the respondent no. 7 had no hand and was assigned no part under any of the Government Orders regarding taking appropriate steps for consideration of petitioner's rehabilitation proposal whereas the order dated 15.2.2011 was also passed against respondent no. 7.  He has further stated that bank has already initiated proceeding for recovery before filing of the writ petition under Section 13(4) of SARFACEI Act. On these averments, it has been prayed that the order dated 15.2.2011 be modified accordingly.

Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the relevant Government Order dated 13th November, 1995, the Reserve Bank of India has contemplated to provide various rehabilitation packages. In the present writ petition after not pressing the reliefs no. 1 and 2, the substantial prayer which remain is only three, which is as under:

"iii.) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 8 to dispose of the Representation/Application of the petitioner for granting the Rehabilitation Package to the Unit in the light of Govt. Orders issued on 13.11.1995, 05.04.1999 and 09.06.2004 respectively;"

In the said relief, the direction was sought for against respondent no. 8 who has to decide his representation. No direction was prayed against respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7.

In view of the above, we are of the view that order dated 15.2.2011 deserves to be modified. In the last but one para of the order dated 15.2.2011, direction to respondents no. 5 to 8 is modified and be read as direction to respondent no. 8 only.

The modification application is allowed to the above extent and the same is disposed of accordingly.

(Prakash Krishna,J)                  (Ashok Bhushan,J)

Order Date :- 26.4.2012

MK/