Judgment R.S. Garg, J. ( 1. ) Shri Siddharth Patel Advocate for the petitioner firstly appeared in the Court and said that Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate who has to argue the matter is on legs before another Judge, therefore, the matter be passed over. ( 2. ) It is to be noticed and is to be recorded by us that we had been telling the Counsel appearing in our Court that if for some reason or the other the arguing counsel is not available in the Court then his junior colleague may open the arguments and in case we are not satisfied with the arguments of the junior counsel, we will call the senior counsel. Despite such a statement in the open Court, unfortunately number of the counsel are neither giving their briefs to their junior colleagues nor are ready to rely upon the words of the Judges. ( 3. ) In the present case also, we compelled Mr. Siddharth Patel Advocate to start the argument and after coming of Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate, we started hearing him. During course of the arguments, we had pointed a question to Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate that from the order AnnexureP/1. it would clearly appear that the petitioner was not carrying on the industrial purpose for which the land was alloted to him and was asking for change of the user then under what authority of law such change is permissible. ( 4. ) Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate referred to Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Udhyog {Shade, Plot Avam Bhumi Avantan} Niyam, 1974 {AnnexuraP/5} and submitted that in every industrial area so marked, 20% of the land can be reserved or may be awarded for ancillary purposes which shall be like electrical sub-center, petrol pump, post office, office of the industrial union, restaurant, hospital, residential houses, banks, STD booths, weigh bridge, railway siding, truck parking, community hall, auditorium and for such other purposes so declared by the State Government from time to time but however with the condition that such establishment shall be feeding need of adjoining industries. It further says that the lease rent shall be recovered at commercial rate. ( 5. It further says that the lease rent shall be recovered at commercial rate. ( 5. ) We asked Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate to read Rule 16 with a slow pace so that we could discuss the effect and impact of Rule 16 but Mr.Manoj Sharma for the reasons best known to him read first two lines slowly and thereafter started reading Rule 16 after leaving number of the material statements. We again requested Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate not to read in such a fashion because the question of interpretation is involved in the matter. We asked Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate that he should read with us. After we started reading Rule 16, Mr.Manoj Sharma said that he be allowed to argue the matter as he likes and he be allowed to develop the arguments on which we said that an argument which is contrary to record shall not be permissible and a counsel is not entitled to argue the matter as he likes but he is required and obliged to hear and understand the questions posed by the Court and explain everything to the Court. Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate thereafter said that if he is not allowed to argue the matter as he wants, he is not ready and willing to argue the matter. We requested Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate in the open Court that he should try to understand the question posed by the Court but Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate said that if he is not allowed it is useless to argue in the Court which is not ready to hear the argument. Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate thereafter in a contemptuous manner closed the file and said that he would not argue the matter. In the open Court, we again requested Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate that if he was of the opinion that the matter is to be argued in the manner he likes, we are ready and willing to hear him but Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate said that he would not open the argument; the Court may do whatever the Court wants. ( 6. ) Ordinarily, we could have taken a serious exception against the conduct of Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate but taking into consideration that he has to go a long way and the arrogance shown in the Court is not going to pay to him, we told him that he should not be so arrogant in the Court. ( 6. ) Ordinarily, we could have taken a serious exception against the conduct of Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate but taking into consideration that he has to go a long way and the arrogance shown in the Court is not going to pay to him, we told him that he should not be so arrogant in the Court. On that, Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate said that he was not being arrogant in the Court but he was trying to place his point before the Court. Despite all that, we again requested Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate to argue the matter but he refused to proceed further. ( 7. ) It is also to be noted that these proceedings are being recorded in presence of Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate, his colleague Mr. Siddharth Patel Advocate. Mr.Vivek Agrawal Government Advocate, Mr. Rahul Jain Deputy Advocate General, Mr.Hitendra Singh Advocate, Mr.G.S.Ahluwalia Advocate and number of others. Even at this stage, Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate has no remorse for whatever he has done and, therefore, we proceed to decide the matter. ( 8. ) The petitioner by this petition seeks to challenge the order dated 16.12.2005 {Annexure P/2} whereunder the petitioners lease dated 23.6.2001 has been cancelled and the order dated 30.6.2006 {AnnexureP/1} communicated to the petitioner on 11.8.2006 has been dismissed. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 20.6.2007 passed by the State Government in its revisional jurisdiction where under the orders {AnnexuresP/1 and P/2} have been confirmed. ( 9. ) " Short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot for establishment of an industry producing/manufacturing Pulses {Dal}. The lease deed {AnnexureP/4} was executed between the parties. The said lease deed provided that upon the request of the lessee, the lessor had agreed to grant to tile lessee subject to the terms and conditions a lease of piece of 34000 square feet for. manufacture of Pulses {Dal} and the purposes ancillary thereto. It was agreed between the parties thus:- "1. The said lease deed provided that upon the request of the lessee, the lessor had agreed to grant to tile lessee subject to the terms and conditions a lease of piece of 34000 square feet for. manufacture of Pulses {Dal} and the purposes ancillary thereto. It was agreed between the parties thus:- "1. In consideration of the premium and ground rent {for land} or rent {for premises} herein reserved and the covenants on the part of the lessee herein contained, the lessor shall demise to the lessee and the lessee shall accept a lease of the said land/building to hold the same for the purpose of manufacturing Pulses............for a period of 99 years commencing on the date on which the possession of said land/premises is handed over to the lessee. 7. The lessee hereby agrees that he shall utilize the complete land leased out to him hereunder, for implementation of the project or for its expansion within a period of three years in case of SSI and five years in case of Medium and Large Scale Industry for the above said purposes. ( 10. ) The lessee shall use the said premises, land and building, structures and works, erected or constructed thereon only for the purpose of the said business of manufacturing Pulses........and other allied products as mentioned in project report/provisional registration for construction of offices, administrative building, godowns and shall not use the same or any other part thereof or permit it or any other part thereof to be used for any other purpose without the previous permission in writing of the lessor. 18. The lessee shall continuously run, during the period of lease the factory for which the land/premises is alloted. Closure of the factory for a continuous period exceeding six months without proper reasons to the satisfaction of the allotting authority shall be considered as a breach of this condition." 10. Though there were number of other terms but we are referring to the above referred Clauses which are in nature of the mandatory terms. Closure of the factory for a continuous period exceeding six months without proper reasons to the satisfaction of the allotting authority shall be considered as a breach of this condition." 10. Though there were number of other terms but we are referring to the above referred Clauses which are in nature of the mandatory terms. When the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner that contrary to the terms of the lease, he was not producing/manufacturing the Pulses {Dal}, therefore, why the lease granted in his favour be not cancelled, the petitioner applied to the Industry Department that he be allowed to change the purpose of the lease for opening or installing of petrol pump, establishment of a restaurant, Krishi {Agriculture} Aushadhalaya{Hospital} and departmental store. It was submitted by the petitioner that he was ready and willing to continue with the purpose for which the lease was granted to him but because of infection of the crop of Gram, number of the agriculturists were not growing the Gram crop and under the circumstances not only the petitioner but number of other Mills were closed. The petitioner submitted that he was ready and. willing to continue as a lessee but for different purposes. It is to be seen from the reply that the petitioner nowhere was saying that the land in question was reserved for ancillary purposes but on the other hand it would clearly appear from the averments contained in the lease deed and the petition that the land was alloted to the petitioner for industrial purposes. The District Industry Department, State Industry Department and the State Government rejected the prayer of the petitioner for conversion of the purpose from industrial to commercial and also cancelled the lease. The petitioner in the petition has said that a fair understanding of Rule 16 would make it clear that 20% of land out of the total allotable area in a particular industrial area can be alloted for ancillary purposes. ( 11. ) When Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate was arguing the matter, he referred to Clause 16 and submitted that in the present matter, the land in question though was alloted for industrial purpose but the petitioner was entitled to make an application for conversion of the use. ( 11. ) When Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate was arguing the matter, he referred to Clause 16 and submitted that in the present matter, the land in question though was alloted for industrial purpose but the petitioner was entitled to make an application for conversion of the use. When Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate was arguing the matter, he had submitted that the petitioners land which is around 34000 square feet would not be more than 20% of the total allotable area, therefore, the petitioner was justified in making the application for conversion. ( 11. ) When Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate was arguing the matter, he referred to Clause 16 and submitted that in the present matter, the land in question though was alloted for industrial purpose but the petitioner was entitled to make an application for conversion of the use. When Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate was arguing the matter, he had submitted that the petitioners land which is around 34000 square feet would not be more than 20% of the total allotable area, therefore, the petitioner was justified in making the application for conversion. ( 12. ) Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, Submitted that a fair reading of Rule 16 and the above referred Clause of the lease deed would make clear that the lease is to be alloted for a particular purpose and as in the present case it was for industrial purpose, the allotee was not entitled to make an application for conversion. His submission is that in a given industrial area, the land is required to be reserved for industrial purpose, ancillary purpose and other purposes. His further submission is that if the land is earmarked for the industrial purpose then the land cannot be alloted for any other purpose. In the alternative, it is submitted by him that if the petitioner was unable to run his industry then he was obliged to surrender the possession and make another application to the Industry Department for allotment of the land for any other ancillary purpose. ( 13. ) We have heard Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner to the extent He argued and Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State to full. ( 14. ( 13. ) We have heard Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner to the extent He argued and Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State to full. ( 14. ) It will have to be noted again that despite repeated requests by the Court Mr.Manoj Sharma Advocate for the petitioner refused to open the arguments. Be that as it may. It is for Mr. Manoj Sharma Advocate to argue for his client or not to argue for his client. In a case like present where counsel after arguing the matter half refuses to argue further, the Court shall not be at the mercy of the Counsel nor the Court would be required to adjourn the matter. If such attitude on part of the Counsel requires the Court to adjourn the matter then it would give a handle, in the hands of the Counsel to throw the file, tie the tags and refuse to argue and the Court would be obliged to adjourn the matter so that the Counsel or the party may find some convenient Bench. ( 15. ) In the present matter, undisputedly and it would also appear from the lease deed {AnnexureP/4} that the land was alloted to the petitioner for construction and establishing thereon a factory for manufacture of Pulses {Dal} and the purposes ancillary thereto. Undisputedly, the land was alloted for manufacture of Pulses {Dal} and for the purposes ancillary thereto. A purpose which is ancillary to the main purpose cannot be wider than the original purpose. If the original purpose was for establishment of an industry, for manufacture of Pulses {Dal} then all ancillary purposes should have been related to the manufacture of Pulses {Dal}. The petitioner in some part of the industry could open a refreshment center, some hospital but however establishment of a petrol pump and settlement of a departmental store would not be an ancillary purpose for the industry manufacturing Pulses {Dal}. ( 16. ) It is also to be seen from Condition No. 1 of AnnexureP/4 that in consideration of the premium of ground rent, the lease was executed in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing Pulses {Dal} for a period of 99 years. ( 17. ( 16. ) It is also to be seen from Condition No. 1 of AnnexureP/4 that in consideration of the premium of ground rent, the lease was executed in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing Pulses {Dal} for a period of 99 years. ( 17. ) It would also appear that in Condition No. 7, the petitioner had agreed that he shall utilize the complete land leased out to him for implementation of the project or for its expansion within a period of three years in case of SSI and five years in case of Medium and Large Scale Industry. ( 18. ) Condition No. 10 would also show that the lessee is obliged to use the said premises, land and building, structures and works, erected or constructed thereon only for the purpose of the said business of manufacturing Pulses and other allied products as mentioned in the project report. However, Condition No. 10 does not permit the petitioner to change the purpose for which the land was leased out to him. ( 19. ) From Condition No. 18, it would appear that the lessee is required to continuously run the factory for which the lands/premises were alloted to him. Undisputedly, the petitioner failed in running the Industry/Factory. Condition No. 18 further says that closure of the factory for a continuous period exceeding six months without proper reason to the satisfaction of the allotting authority shall be considered as a breach of Condition No. 18. For application of Condition No. 18, the lessee is obliged to satisfy the judicial conscience of the allotting authority that for a genuine reason he was unable to run the Industry for a period beyond six months. ( 20. ) In the present matter, the only reason assigned by the petitioner was that because of the infection in the standing crops, number of cultivators stopped growing Gram crop and, therefore, the petitioner was unable to get the raw material and produce the Pulses {Dal}. ( 21. ) We are at a loss to understand that if the Gram crop was not available, why the petitioner could not use other raw material for manufacture of Pulses {Dal}. The lease deed nowhere said that the petitioner is obliged to manufacture or produce Gram Pulses {Dal}; it simply says that the petitioner would produce the Pulses. ( 22. ) We are at a loss to understand that if the Gram crop was not available, why the petitioner could not use other raw material for manufacture of Pulses {Dal}. The lease deed nowhere said that the petitioner is obliged to manufacture or produce Gram Pulses {Dal}; it simply says that the petitioner would produce the Pulses. ( 22. ) Except a bald statement in reply to the show cause, the petitioner did not file any document especially a report from Patwari, Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer or Collector that in the particular area because of the bad weather or because of the insects infection, the crops were damaged and the particular agriculturists have stopped growing a particular crop. Simply because the petitioner says that some agriculturists have stopped growing a particular crop, such statement would not be accepted to be a gospel truth. When a petitioner comes to a Court or goes to an authority seeking exemption for one or the other reason then he is required and obliged to satisfy the Court and Authority that the reason projected by him is not an eyewash but a genuine reason. In the present case, the reason so projected in reply to the show cause is neither genuine nor a bona fide one. The reason is also not supported by any material. 23 From a perusal of order dated 30.6.2006 {AnnexureP/1} communicated to the petitioner on 11.8.2006, it would clearly appear that the Appellate Authority has considered every argument. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration that the land in dispute is marked as industrial land. The land has been received by the Industry Department from the Revenue Department for industrial purpose and, therefore, the land could not be used for any other purpose. 24. A person who enters into the property for a particular purpose cannot be allowed to change the purpose. Similarly, in the lease deed executed between the parties, there are no Conditions/Covenants that the lessee would be entitled to ask for change of the purpose and lessor would be obliged to change the purpose on the say of such lessee. In our opinion, the authorities were absolutely justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for non-cancellation or for change of the purpose. 25. In our opinion, the authorities were absolutely justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for non-cancellation or for change of the purpose. 25. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed in making out a case for any interference. Ordinarily, we would have imposed cost in a matter like present but we feel that the petitioner should not be saddled with the cost because he appears to have taken wrong stand before the subordinate Tribunals on the basis of the wrong legal advise. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed