Parties must adhere to procedural rules and disclose previous petitions to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

1. Both these petitions being based on the similar facts and law are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. M/s. Brij Mohan Rice Mill (hereinafter referred to as the Unit) is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. Sri Gyan Singh son of Sri Kandhai Lal, Prem Singh son of Sri Brij Mohan, Smt. Indira Devi wife of Sri Brij Mohan and Smt. Pan Kumari daughter of Sri Manohar Singh are partners of the unit.
It appears that the Unit was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 14-50 lacs on 2-4-1988 by the U.P. Financial Corporation (for short the Corporation) but later on it was cancelled by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 14-9-1988. Thereafter by order dated 27-2-1991 the Managing Director revived the loan and ultimately on 13-8-1991 agreement was executed between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of agreement the loan amount does not seem to have been paid to the Corporation, therefore, the Corporation issued notice dated 12-8-94 under S. 29 of U.P. Financial Corporation Act . However, petitioner made certain deposits towards the loan but entire amount due was not paid to the Corporation as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Ultimately for recovery of loan auction proceedings have been initiated against the unit. Hence these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation raised preliminary objection that these petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable in as much as in the matter of grant and recovery of aforesaid loan petitioner has filed as many as four writ petitions concealing the fact of filing previous petition in the subsequent petitions and left no stone unturned to get desired orders from this Court on one pretext or the other, in one petition or the other, through one counsel or the other which amounts to bench hunting tactics.

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation further contended that writ jurisdiction of this Court is a discretionary jurisdiction and since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands hence he does not deserve the exercise of discretion in his favour and therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that different writ petitions have been filed for different reliefs at different stages in accordance with the Rules of the Court therefore, writ petitions are maintainable.

5. Learned counsel further contended that since entire loan amount sanctioned to the petitioner was not paid to the unit hence the unit is not liable to repay the entire amount shown to be due against it and therefore, entire recovery proceedings including auction of the unit are without any authority of law and consequently are liable to be quashed.

6. We have sent for the record of all the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the matter of grant and recovery of the loan in question and perused the same.

7. Here it may be made clear that petition filed by any of the partners for and on behalf of the partnership firm is to be deemed to have been filed by the firm irrespective of the fact that once the petition is filed by partner A and then B and thereafter by C, if partners A. B. and C are partners till the date of filing of petition. Petitioner first filed writ petition No. 12517 of 1992, M/s. Brij Mohan Rice Mill v. Regional Manager U. P. F.C., thereafter filed writ petition No. 2660 of 1995, M / s Brij Mohan Rice Mill v. Regional Manager UPFC, then filed third writ petition No. 37850 of 1995, Prem Singh (Partner of the Firm) v. Regional Manager UPFC and thereafter filed 4th writ petition No. 5286 of 1996, Gyan Singh (Partner of the Firm) v. Regional Manager UPFC, in the same matter of grant and recover