( 1 ) THIS writ petition and Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2002 as well as Writ Petition no. 43 of 1989 involve a similar question and hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first two petitions and sri K. L. Grover in the third, learned standing counsel for the State of U. P. and Sri Rakesh ranjan Agarwal for respondent No. 4 in the first petition.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 is a company registered under the Indian companies Act which had borrowed money from the petitioner State Bank of India as stated in paragraphs 5 to 11 of the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 had also given a letter of undertaking to the petitioner not to create any charge over the properties and assets which have been mortgaged and hypothecated. True copy of the hypothecation agreement is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. True copies of the letter of undertaking and arrangement letters are Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IT is alleged in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition that the respondent company