JAGAT GEMS & JEWELLERY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm submits that the petitioner was awarded an Export House No.0006 on 22.01.2004 for achieving good export turnover. Consequently, plot bearing no.129G34/35 measuring 1290 square meters was allotted to the petitioner firm on 21.10.2004. Keeping in view the high export turnover, the office of the Development Commissioner vide their letter dated 23.12.2005 awarded two star export house certificate to the petitioner based on their performance. The Development Commissioner further allotted plot no.129G-33 measuring 450 square meters to the petitioner on 02.06.2005 and also the office of Development Commissioner vide letter dated 27.09.2005 further extended the validity of LOA dated 10.03.2000 for next 5 years upto March, 2010. In the year 2016, the LOA of the petitioner was renewed twice for six months with the condition that no request for transfer of assets and liabilities shall be entertained and the unit shall re-start its business within the stipulated period. By a communication dated 23.03.2016, the petitioner sought further time for starting operations on account of the building requiring maintenance. Further extension was granted. However, the petitioner did not start its business activities. The reasons for non-start of the business activity were on account of prolonged illness of one of its proprietors, slump in the gold business and rising cost of gold in the international market and allied reasons. The explanation report filed by the petitioner was not found acceptable resulting in passing of an order dated 23.03.2017, by which the Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ) did not renew the LOA issued to the petitioner and the possession was taken. An appeal filed against the aforesaid order stands rejected on 12.05.2017.

(2.) After some hearing in the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that since the order of the appellate authority is not a reasoned order, the petitioner would be satisfied if one opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner to explain his case and thereafter, the appellate authority be directed to pass a reasoned order. Learned senior counsel further submits that in case the request so made is acceptable, he would not press the prayer made with regard to the challenge to the vires of the section 8 (2)(g), 8(6) & 8(7) of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 (SEZ Act ) (28 of the 2005).

(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that this case has a chequered history as two writ petitions were filed earlier. In fact, the second writ petition was not maintainable as the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without any liberty being sought.