Abhaya Kashyap vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it. Firstly, the Court noted that the original allottee of the industrial plots, Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, was not made a party to the writ petition, nor was respondent No. 5 impleaded in his capacity as its proprietor. The Court emphasized that since the plots were leased out by the Industries Department to Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, this entity, and not an individual, was the leaseholder. Consequently, no agreement to sell could be entered into by Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products with anyone concerning these plots, as it was not the owner. The Court found the Agreement to Sell dated May 9, 2024, to be without legal sanctity because the leaseholder had no legal right to sell the leased property. The Court also observed that the averment in the agreement that Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products was the owner in possession was incorrect, as a leaseholder cannot be considered an owner. Furthermore, the Court found that the petition involved seriously disputed questions of fact, particularly concerning the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The Court opined that if a company or entity holding a lease is unable to continue its activity, it must surrender the land back to the Industries Department, after which a fresh lease would be granted through open bidding, not through private agreements. The Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhaya Kashyap, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the transfer of lease rights for industrial plots No. 82 and 83 in Thaliwal, District Una, in her favour. These plots were originally allotted to M/s Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the firm and its assets from respondent No. 5, purportedly the proprietor of Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, for Rs. 63.75 lac. A sale deed was executed, and permission for lease transfer was granted by the Director of Industries on June 28, 2024. However, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 regarding a security cheque issued for finished goods inventory. The petitioner also noted that respondent No. 5 illegally cancelled the GST of the LLP. A civil suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner, and an interim order restraining dispossession was granted. Despite the permission for lease transfer, the respondent-Department had not transferred the lease rights, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can direct the transfer of lease rights of industrial plots when the original allottee, Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, is not a party to the writ petition and respondent No. 5, who is arrayed as a respondent, is not impleaded in his capacity as proprietor of the said firm? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) 2. Whether an agreement to sell concerning industrial plots leased by the Industries Department is legally tenable when the leaseholder is not the owner and cannot enter into such an agreement? (Question of law) 3. Whether the writ petition involves seriously disputed questions of fact that preclude it from being decided in writ jurisdiction? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a valid sale deed was registered, and the Director of Industries had granted permission for the lease transfer, thus the respondent-Department should transfer the lease rights. The petitioner also argued that the dispute with respondent No. 5 was a separate matter, and an injunction was already granted in her favour in a civil suit. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, argued that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, and the respondent-Department had been informed of this fact. They also highlighted that the original allottee, Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, was not a party to the petition, and respondent No. 5 was not impleaded in his capacity as its proprietor. The respondents implicitly argued that the leaseholder, not being the owner, could not enter into an agreement to sell the plots.