##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8903

1 RP-148-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

REVIEW PETITION No. 148 of 2025

M/S MECHMEN AND OTHERS

Versus

DISTRICT TRADE AND INDUSTRIES CENTER AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra - Senior Advocate with Ms. Namrata Purohit

- Advocate for applicants.

Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER

Heard through video conferencing.

1. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed

against the order dated 25/7/2024 passed by this Court in W.P.

No.13564/2006, mainly on two grounds, i.e. (i) the applicant had never

instructed his counsel not to press the relief sought against the cancellation

of lease, and (ii) it is an undisputed fact that the land which was leased out to

the applicant is being used for running a factory, and the allegation that the

land in dispute is being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which

it was leased out, is incorrect.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present review petition, in

short, are that the applicant was granted a lease for establishing a factory for

manufacturing electricity pumps. It was alleged that the applicant is using the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMAN TIWARI

Signing time: 03-02-2026

03:31:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8903

2 RP-148-2025

said land for purposes other than the purposes for which it was leased out. In

fact, the applicant had set up a showroom of Tata trucks and is also operating

a workshop on the land in dispute. Questions were raised in the Vidhan

Sabha, and on an inquiry, the said fact was found to be correct, and

accordingly, the lease granted to the applicant was cancelled.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred W.P.

No.13564/2006, which came up for hearing on 25/07/2024. On the said date,

a statement was made by counsel for petitioner that since the dealership of

the petitioner by Tata Motors has been cancelled, and therefore, the

petitioner does not want to challenge the cancellation of lease and he is

confining himself to the order of recovery of Rs. 1,33,52,625/-, which was

imposed by way of commercial duty.

4. Accordingly, W.P. No.13564/2006 was partially allowed, and the

order of recovery of commercial duty to the tune of Rs.1,33,52,625/- was set

aside, and a direction was given to the respondents that they shall issue a

specific show-cause notice pointing out the method of arriving at the amount

of Rs.1,33,52,625/- for the period 2001 to 2006.

5. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since the counsel for

petitioner had not pressed the main relief against the cancellation of lease

deed, therefore, a show-cause notice was also issued by applicant to his

previous counsel, namely Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, seeking his explanation,

otherwise it shall be presumed that he has no answer to the queries of the

applicant. It is submitted that Shri Rajesh Maindiretta has also given a reply

to the effect that in spite of his best efforts, the petitioner could not be

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMAN TIWARI

Signing time: 03-02-2026

03:31:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8903

3 RP-148-2025

contacted, and in absence of instructions, he had no other choice but to

confine his arguments to the extent of penalty imposed on the firm. It is

submitted that once counsel for applicant had made certain statements

without any authority and had given up the challenge to the order of

cancellation of lease deed, then it is a good ground to review the order and

an opportunity may be given to the applicant to argue the matter afresh.

Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by

Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and

another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741, as

well as the order dated 12/2/2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., passed in R.P.

N