Denial of registration certificate without evidence of liability is arbitrary and malafide.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-6, whereby they have been denied registration by the Director, Industries on the ground that erstwhile owner of the unit as not cleared the dues realisable from him.

2. The petitioner is auction purchaser of the said unit, which was sold in auction by the Respondent Corporation for realisation of loan. After purchase of the unit, the petitioner applied for new registration of the said unit vide Annexure-3, which has finally been turned down by the Director, Industries (Respondent no. 2) vide impugned letter (Annexure-6).

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2, it is stated that old unit had been provided interest free loan of Rs. 6,72,104/- by the Government, which now is about Rs.12,70,328/- with interest which is recoverable from the new unit. Hence, it is stated that the prayer of the petitioner for providing new registration certificate without any condition with respect to payment of interest free loan of M/s Shanker Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. is M/s Shanker Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. is neither maintainable nor justified.

4. Learned counsel tor the State has failed to show that there is any liability of the auction purchaser to pay off the loan taken by the erstwhile owner. He has, however, placed reliance on the decision of the Government of India with respect to revised registration procedure issued to the Director, Industries, Government of Haryana on 19.3.1979 with a copy to all State Directors of Industries. A photostat copy of which has been produced by him and the same has also been annexed as Annexure - 7 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing in the said decision of the Government of india which provides that the auction purchaser in the facts and circumstances aforementioned can be granted registration certificate only upon clearance of the dues of the erstwhile owner against the said unit. Moreover, learned counsel for the Corporation has also failed to show that the petitioner was made aware of any such liability against the said unit or that they purchased the unit with its liability. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, denial of grant of registration certificate by the Director of which the petitioner has been kept deprived for almost five years is wholly arbitrary, and malafide. Earlier this Court adjourned the matter to enable the Director, Industries to reconsider the matter, but there has been no response.

5. Accordingly, writ application is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the Director, Industries (Respondent no.2) from his pocket to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to grant registration certificate and pay the amount of cost within a week, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival and for taking appropriate action.

6. As prayed by learned J.C. to G.P. IV, let a copy of this order be supplied to him.