ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 15.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1 making a prayer for quashing of same.

2. Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPAKVN’) by impugned order dated 15.6.2011 cancelled land transfer order dated 29.3.2006 and lease deed dated 22.5.2006 in respect of Plot No.2-C, Sector A, Area 6000 Sq. Ft. Industrial Area Mandideep, District Raisen. It is mentioned in said order that show cause notice was issued on 11.3.2011 and reply to said show cause notice was received. It was held that dues were paid by petitioner but production of designated product was not started in unit. Lease deed dated 22.5.2006 was not registered within the time period prescribed. Giving said reasons, Managing Director, M.P.A.K.V.N. Ltd. vide order dated 15.6.2011 cancelled transfer order and lease deed mentioned above. Petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of plot to M.P.A.K.V.N. Ltd. within one month and security amount of Rs. 3345/- was confiscated.

3. Impugned order was challenged by petitioner in appeal before President, M.P.A.K.V.N. Limited. Representative of unit told that repairing work of furniture belonging to institution is being done in the unit and plot is not being used for residential purposes of employees. Therefore, order of cancelling lease may be set aside.

4. Respondents in appeal had placed reliance on report dated 30.4.2012 and alleged that no production activity was undertaken in the unit. Only some employees were residing there. Petitioner workshop has earlier purchased 10 plots from financial institutions and was using it for non industrial purposes and later sold it. Unit is only doing furniture repairing work and there was no industrial production.

5. Appellate authority taking into consideration rival submissions and documents arrived at finding that no industrial production is being done and affirmed the order dated 15.6.2011 and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.6.2012.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on grounds that respondent No. 2 did not provide opportunity to petitioner for getting amended lease deed registered. Impugned order is without jurisdiction and also barred by Limitation Act. Respondent No. 1 by interim measure directed respondent No.2 to produce progress report of petitioner’s unit and also take effective steps for getting amended lease deed registered. Respondent No.2 did not provide necessary documents to petitioner for getting amended sale deed registered and prepared progress report behind the back of petitioner without doing actual inspection. Impugned order dated 15.6.2012 is contrary to finding recorded in interim order dated 27.01.2012. In said interim order, it has been mentioned that petitioner was using welding machine, gas cutters etc. in industrial unit and renovation of unit was in progress. Authorities committed an error in relying upon inspection report dated 15.6.2012. Orders are passed violating rights of natural justice. Further, evidence such as photographs, material records, salary sheets, salary register to show that manufacturing activity is being carried out in unit are also relied. On basis of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made prayer for quashing of impugned orders.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that lease deed was executed on 5.7.1985 in favour of M/s Shri Satya Sai Nursing Home. M/s RKDF Workshop sought transfer of lease hold rights, which existed in favour of M/s Shri Satya Sai Nursing Home. Permission for transfer of lease hold rights was given vide letter dated 29.3.2006. Amended lease deed has not been registered till date. As such, the petitioner has no locus standi in eyes of law to challenge impugned orders. Peti