1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1663/2008 IN Writ Petition No. 4953/2007 (DECIDED) (Rajind Motors Pvt. Limited VERSUS The General Manager District Industries Centre & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. G.B. Sawal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the R-1. Mr. C.V. Kale, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 12, 2008. Heard. This civil application is moved by the applicant/petitioner for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only) deposited by the applicant/petitioner Rajind Motors Pvt. Limited in Writ Petition No.4953/2007. Mr. N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, has contended that the petitioner in the said petition, has purchased the plot No.C-5/1 situated at Sonegaon Nipani, Gram Panchayat Wadi, admeasuring 4952.127 Sq.Mtrs. from the respondent no.2 in the said petition by registered sale-deed dated 02.04.2005. It is contended that the said plot was initially allotted to respondent no.2 by Maharashtra Industrial 2 Development Corporation and respondent no.2 has availed certain benefits under Package Scheme of Incentives, 1988, which were extended on certain terms and conditions of the said Package Scheme, the proceedings of recovery were initiated against respondent no.2 for recovery of amount which came to Rupees Twelve Lacs. Mr. N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, further states that the petitioner Rajind Motors Pvt. Limited wanted to dispose of the said land in question, and therefore, no objection certificate from respondent no.1 was necessary for this purpose. It is contended that the petitioner deposited Rupees Twelve Lacs in this Court, and therefore, respondent no.1 issued no objection certificate in favour of petitioner Rajind Motors Pvt. Limited, on the basis thereof the petitioner sold the land in question to the third person. Mr. N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, has submitted that the State Government is not interested whether the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs is paid by the petitioner or by the respondent no.2 since the amount was required to be recovered from respondent no.2. However, since the petitioner has purchased the 3 property in question from the respondent no.2, it is for the petitioner and respondent no.2 to decide the dispute, if any, in respect of amount which is required to be recovered from respondent no.2. It is contended that so far as respondent no.1 is concerned, the no objection certificate was issued in favour of petitioner during the pendency of the Writ Petition No.4953/2007 only in view of the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs deposited by the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent no.1 be permitted to withdraw the said amount. Mr. Sawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, has submitted that the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs was due and payable by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1, and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the said amount. It is contended that though the petitioner has purchased the land in question from respondent no.2 in the said petition, however, recovery was initiated against the respondent no.2, and therefore, it is the respondent no.2, who was liable to pay the amount to the respondent no.1. In the circumstances, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs. 4 Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, has not disputed that the respondent no.1 initiated the recovery proceedings against respondent no.2 for recovery of Rupees Twelve Lacs. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 has initiated proceedings of recovery of amount from respondent no.2 in view of breach of conditions alleged to have been committed by the respondent no.2 under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1988. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the land in question from respondent no.2 and wanted to sell the said land to the third person. Since respondent no.1 refused to grant the no objection certificate because the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs was due from respondent no.2, the petitioner Rajind Motors Pvt. Limited filed a Writ Petition No.4953/2007, wherein the direction was sought against the respondent no.1 to issue no objection certificate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner deposited amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs in this Court. It is not known why the 5 petitioner deposited the said amount and what arrangement arrived at between petitioner and respondent no.2. However, it is evident that after the deposit of Rupees Twelve Lacs in this Court, respondent no.1 has issued the no objection certificate in favour of petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition was disposed of. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent no.2 has challenged the action of recovery of amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs taken by respondent no.1 by filing another petition i.e. Writ Petition bearing No. 324/2008 which is pending here. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the respondent no.1 granted no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner in view of the amount of Rupees Twelve Lacs deposited by the petitioner and on the basis thereof, the petitioner has also transferred the property in question in favour of the third person, and therefore, respondent no.1 is justified in seeking withdrawal of the said amount, who is not concerned with the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2. However, it is open for the petitioner to recover the said amount from respondent no.2. 6 For the reasons stated hereinabove, the civil application moved by the petitioner is dismissed. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner prays that the present order may not be given effect for a period of six weeks. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, particularly because after the issuance of no objection certificate, the petitioner has already transferred the land in question in favour of third party, the request is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE APTE