B.S. Chauhan, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25-7-96, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, including the condition that the petitioner shall be liable for liabilities incurred by the previous occupier of the premises, and for quashing the order dated 26-7-97, contained in Annexure-11 to the petition, by which the application of the petitioner to delete the Condition

No. 4, has been rejected.

.2. Thefacts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one M/s. Shyam Oil & Cake Limited (hereinafter called “the firm”) was the lessee of an industrial plot situated at B-ST Marudhar Industrial Area, II Phase, Basni. While the lease was subsisting, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the said lessee to purchase-the said premises for a consideration of Rs. 21 lacs. As it was not a free-hold property, the original lessee, i.e. the firm applied for permission to transfer the lease-hold rights in favour of petitioner, to the Rajasthan Industrial and Investment Corporation (RIICO), which is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. Vide letter dated 25-7-96, RIICO replied to the said firm that the transfer of the lease-hold right was permissible subject to certain conditions. The Condition, with which the Court is concerned, reads as under:-

.“(4). That M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium will bear all past and future liabilities of old firm pertaining to Government and Semi-Government Department.”

.3. In fact, even in the original agreement entered into between the parties on 21-10-94, contained in

.Annexure-1 to this petition, there was a Clause VI-B, which reads as under:-“The assignor shall be liable for all taxes including income tax, sales tax, municipal tax, electricity charges, assessed land and building tax and any other tax, charges or expenses prior to 1-4-93; and the assignee shall be liable for all these charges and tax pertaining to period on or after 1-4-93.,,

4. Onimposition of such conditions vide order dated 25-7-96 by the RIICO, the petitioner and previous occupier, the firm entered into a supplementary agreement dated 21-10-94, (Annexure-2) by which they agreed to delete Clause VI-B from the agreement dated 21-10-94 with retrospective effect as if such Clause had not been contained in the original agreement. The petitioner was fastened with certain liability of sales tax which was with respect to the previous occupier, i.e. the firm, and prior to the date of occupation by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said demand by filing an Original Application before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal as O.A. No. 148/1997, in which the RIICO as well as the previous occupier were the parties and in that Original Application, petitioner challenged that Condition No. in the impugned order dated 25-7-96 could not have been imposed; it was illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the authority, i.e., RIICO to impose such a condition. The matter was heard and decided by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal vide its Judgment and order dated 8-7-97, contained in Annexure-R. 1, by which the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had entered into the contract, voluntarily with his eyes open and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the other party.

5. Beingaggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2908/1997. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3-9-97. It appears that after withdrawing the said writ petition, petitioner filed another O.A. No. 174/1997 before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal for deleting the said Clause mentioned in Annexure-3 and the said O.A. is still pending before the Tribunal for consideration., Petitioner had applied to the RIICO to delete the Condition No. 4 from the impugned order dated 25-7-96, however, the representation has been rejected by the said Authority vide order dated 26-7-97, contained in Annex