// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9736/2002 M/s Rapier Machinery Manufacturing Company (India) Private Limited, 134/136, Zaveri Bazar, 1st Floor, Mumbai Versus The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another Date of Order ::: 13.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Indresh Sharma, Advocate, for Shri Anupam Agrawal, Counsel for petitioner Shri V. Lodha, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- “i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be commanded with a direction to release the entire material pertaining to the petitioner company forthwith and in that regard, if the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, may kindly be passed any other appropriate order, so that the material of the petitioner company may not be wasted in the manner it has been kept and seized by the respondent No.1 and if the material is not released immediately and if looses its value, then the respondent No.1 be made liable for making good of entire loss sustained by the petitioner Company. ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Cost may also be awarded to the petitioner.” A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents // 2 // and, in pursuance thereof, the respondent No.1 has filed the reply to the writ petition. The respondent No.1, in its reply, has mentioned as under:- “In this regard the answering respondent No.1 would like to state before this Hon'ble Court that no material has been seized by the answering respondent No.1 of the petitioner company instead the respondent No.1 has only seized the plant and machinery, sheds etc. by taking over the possession of the unit of the respondent No.2, since it failed to repay the outstanding electric consumption charges/dues accrued against the answering respondent No.1 towards electricity consumption charges by invoking the provisions of law. In these circumstances by no stretch of imagination the present writ petition is at all maintainable qua the answering respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid fact the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily with costs in favour of the answering respondent No.1 on this count alone.”. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the aforesaid facts mentioned by respondent in its reply to the effect that the respondent No.1 has not seized any material of the petitioner but it has taken possession of unit belonging to the respondent No.2. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//