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. 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. Petitioner does not have any right or interest over plots due to non registration of amended lease deed. Amended lease deed dated 22.5.2006 was handed over to M/s RKDF Workshop for purpose of registration. Petitioner did not take any steps for registration. Notice was issued to petitioner regarding violation of Clauses 9 and 12 and for registration of amended lease deed in office of Sub Registrar. Show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2009 on basis of inspection which shows that petitioner is not doing any industrial production of plot in question. Petitioner did not file reply to said show cause notice. Second show cause notice was issued on 11.3.2011 to explain violation of Clauses 2, 7 and 18 of lease deed and petitioner was also directed to make payment of mandatory dues which includes lease rent and maintenance charges. Petitioner did not file reply to said show cause notice. Second show cause notice was issued on 11.3.2011 to explain violation of Clauses 2, 7 and 18 of lease deed and petitioner was also directed to make payment of mandatory dues which includes lease rent and maintenance charges. Petitioner filed reply to second show cause notice and paid due amounts but, failed to submit reply regarding inaction to start industrial production on plot. Therefore, amended lease deed was cancelled. It is submitted that pursuant to interim order passed by appellate authority, original lease deed was handed over to authorized officer of petitioner but, petitioner did not take any action for registration of amended lease deed. Inspection was carried out on 15.10.2011 as per interim orders and it was found that no machinery has been installed on plot in question and plot is used for residential purposes to employees of RKDF Engineering College, Bhopal. President, M.P.A.K.V.N. Limited dismissed the appeal. Representation of petitioner is pending before Department of Commerce, Industries and Employment, State of Madhya Pradesh on 27.7.2012. Inspection was also carried out on 28.8.2012 and also on 23.5.2017 and no industrial production was found on spot. Petitioner’s started industrial production after submitting representation on 27.7.2012 and said activities were not continued as revealed in latest inspection report dated 23.5.2017. In view of same, no interference is called for in orders passed by the authorities and writ petition be dismissed. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties. 9. On going through order dated 15.6.2011, it is found that original lease deed was executed in name of M/s Shri Satya Sai Nursing Home. Later, same was amended to transfer plot and lease in favour of M/s RKDF Workshop and product in lease deed was changed from “nursing home” to “fabrication works, repairing and maintenance job work.” Amended lease deed dated 22.5.2006 is to be got registered by petitioner. By impugned orders dated 15.6.2011 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 15.6.2012 (Annexure P/9), transfer order dated 29.3.2006 and lease deed dated 22.5.2006 were cancelled on ground that no action was taken by petitioner for starting production of designated product on unit and lease deed has not been registered within limitation, therefore, the same stands automatically cancelled. In appeal, President, M.P.A.K.V.N. Limited Bhopal passed interim order on 27.1.2012 (Annexure P/5). In appeal, President, M.P.A.K.V.N. Limited Bhopal passed interim order on 27.1.2012 (Annexure P/5). In said order, report dated 22.11.2011 was taken into consideration, in which welding machine, gas cutter and renovation of unit was found on plot and no employees were found to be living there. In view of said report, petitioner was directed to get lease deed registered by 31st March, 2012 and also to give information regarding progress of unit to A.K.V.N. After considering aforesaid, case was listed for passing final orders in month of April, 2012 and finally appeal was dismissed. 10. Orders dated 15.6.2011 and 15.6.2012 are challenged in the writ petition. Said orders are to be considered on basis of facts existing at that time and reasons given in the orders. Supervening facts and circumstances cannot be taken into consideration for testing of said orders. On basis of said principle, impugned orders dated 15.6.2011 and 15.6.2012 are tested by this Court. 11. Considering impugned order, it is clear that appellate authority in principal agreed for renewal of lease deed considering report dated 22.11.2011 and fixed case for final order in appeal. After passing of order dated 27.1.2012, petitioner has written letters dated 2.2.2012 and 6.2.2012, wherein complaint was made that lease documents were not made available for getting the same registered. By said letters, it was also informed that dues has been deposited. General Manager, Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation also wrote letter dated 31.3.2012 (Annexure P/7) to Managing Director, M.P.A.K.V.N. Limited, Bhopal that lease documents were not made available to petitioner for registration. The appeal was listed for final orders and order was passed on it on 15.6.2012. It is mentioned in said order that detailed report dated 30.4.2012 was produced, which shows that no production was being done on unit and unit had purchased 10 plots and used it for non industrial use and had sold it. Unit is doing furniture repairing and not doing any commercial production. With said reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that no inspection was conducted on plot and report was prepared behind the back of petitioner, therefore, same could not be considered for passing final order. Respondent had not filed any document to show that inspection and report dated 30.4.2012 was prepared in presence of petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that no inspection was conducted on plot and report was prepared behind the back of petitioner, therefore, same could not be considered for passing final order. Respondent had not filed any document to show that inspection and report dated 30.4.2012 was prepared in presence of petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing. In reply, reference has been given to report dated 28.8.2012 and inspection report dated 23.5.2017. Said reports are prepared after passing of order, therefore, same cannot be taken into consideration. Report dated 30.4.2012 is not placed on record and report dated 3.4.2012 was prepared in violation of right of natural justice. Appellate authority had taken into consideration a new fact that unit has entered into transaction in respect of 10 plots for non industrial purposes. Said fact was not in issue in original order nor in appeal. A new fact cannot be taken into consideration by appellate authority without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. In view of same, appellate order dated 15.6.2012 violates rights of natural justice of petitioner. Further, finding given by appellate authority that unit is not doing commercial production therefore lease is canceled, is also perverse. As per amended lease, petitioner had to do fabrication works, repairing and maintenance job work on industrial plot. In impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that petitioner is doing furniture repairing work on plot, therefore, it cannot be said that activity of petitioner was contrary to the purpose mentioned in the amended lease deed. In appellate order, no mention is made of communications made by petitioner and by General Manager, M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation regarding non-supply of necessary documents for registration of lease deed. In reply also, no document has been placed on record to show that documents were made available to petitioner for registration pursuant to order dated 27.1.2012. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, writ petition filed by petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by appellate authority order dated 15.6.2012 is quashed. Resultantly, order dated 15.6.2011 is also quashed and order dated 29.3.2006 is revived. Respondent authorities are directed to hand over necessary documents and complete formalities for registration of amended lease deed dated 22.05.2006. 14. With aforesaid direction, writ petition is allowed and disposed off.