DAT PETHE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On inducement of incentive to industrial enterpreneurs, who were willing to start industries in the Corlim Industrial Estate established by the 4th respsondent, Industrial Development Corporation, Goa, (for short the Corporation), the 1st petitioner, an industrialist in Cochin, ventured to start an industrial unit by name 'Datta Metal Works' by taking five sheds belonging to the Corporation between 14-12-1968 and 5-2-1970; but had to close it down on 18-12-1970 having realised that it was impossible for him to continue it as an economically viable unit.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition can be summed up as follows:-- Having known that incentive was being offered by the Corporation to enter-preneurs for starting industrial units in the Corlim Industrial Estate, the 1st petitioner took on rent shed Nos. 16 and 19 on 14-12-1968. No. 17 ma 236- 1969, No. 23 on 18-9-1989 and No. 22 on 5-2-1970. While this eoncern belonging to the first petitioner was functioning there arose difficulties for the first petitioner in carrying on the working of the undertaking due to various difficulties primarily that of financial stringency and labour trouble. Matters moved to a crisis, and after giving due notice to the Corpora-boil, the first petitioner bad to close down the industry altogether and leave Goa, selling the machineries there itself. He had for the period of his occupation of the five sheds, paid a sum of Rs. 16,357,01 towards rent due. besides having made a deposit of Rupees 7000/-. His case is that at the time when he undertook to start the industry he was told by the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation that a subsidy of rent to the tune of 50% would be given for the first five years. The rent calculated at the full rate would come to Rs. 39,250.01. After having adjusted the payments, the Corporation found that a sum of Rs. 16,952.17, inclusive of a sum of Rs. 396/- towards the repair charges of the office room in shed No. C-23, was due from the petitioners, and sought to recover the same by resorting to Revenue Recovery proceedings. The contention of the petitioners on the correctness of the amount claimed is that after crediting the amounts paid towards the rent and adjusting the amount in deposit, a sum of Rs. 3750/-would be due to the first petitioner from the Corporation on the basis that he was entitled to subsidy at the rate of 50% as promised at the time of the starting of the industry. Apart from challenging the correctness of this amount sought to be recovered, the petitioners have raised mainly three contentions: (1) the proceedings initiated for recovery of the amount has no legal basis inasmuch as neither Section 3 nor Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, for short the Act, has application to the case; (2) the certificate not having been issued in the name of the defaulter, namely the first petitioner, the respondents cannot proceed against him for want of certificate; nor could the 2nd petitioner be proceeded against as he was not a defaulter, even assuming that the first petitioner was a defaulter; and (3) the first petitioner is entitled to raise the plea of equitable estoppel in view of the promise of subsidy to the extent of 50% of the rent for the first five years made by the Corporation at the time of his undertaking to Start the industry.

(3.) Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:--