HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 07.07.2006 and 02.11.2007, passed by respondent No. 3 (copies annexure -12 and 19 to the writ petition). By the impugned order dated 07.07.2006, allotment of industrial plot in favour of the petitioner is cancelled, and by the impugned order dated

(2.) 11.2007, representation of the petitioner is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavits, supplementary counter affidavits and supplementary rejoinder affidavits, on record.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner is a private Ltd. company, registered under Companies Act, 1956, State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (for short SIDCUL), is a company owned by the State Government. To attract industrial entrepreneurs in the State of Uttarakhand, SIDCUL invited applications for establishing industrial units in the State. In response to said invitation, petitioner also submitted its application and deposited necessary fee. Vide letter dated 15.04.2004 (copy annexure -2 to the writ petition), SIDCUL allotted plot No. 2 -B in Sector 1 of the Industrial Integrated Estate (for short I.I.E.), Rudrapur, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner within a stipulated period, deposited land premium as per the terms of allotment, where after, SIDCUL delivered possession of the plot to the petitioner on 21.08.2004 (copy of which is annexure -4 to the writ petition). Thereafter a lease deed was executed on 16.09.2005 (copy of which is annexure -7 to the writ petition) by the respondent SIDCUL in favour of the petitioner. It is pleaded that petitioner had invested more than 5.5 crores of rupees in construction for setting up industry on the plot allotted to him. Meanwhile, Parliament while passing the budget for the financial years 2006 -07, made certain changes in the tariff and excise duty relating to the food products. Since the petitioner intended to avail exemption of the excise duty in the food products to be manufactured, by establishing unit in Uttrakhand, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner decided to reschedule the production in its unit at I.I.E., Pantnagar. However, SIDCUL issued a letter dated 01.05.2006 (copy annexure -9 to the writ petition) advising the petitioner to complete the construction and start production else allotment would be cancelled after 10.05.2006. In reply to aforesaid letter on 08.05.2006, the petitioner sought extension of one year for commencement of his products, in the changed circumstances. It is alleged that SIDCUL on one hand, vide its letter dated 18.05.2006 (copy annexure -11 to the writ petition), granted further one year time to complete the product and on the other hand, without affording any opportunity of hearing, passed impugned order dated 07.07.2006 (copy annexure -12 to the writ petition), cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has violated condition No. 14, which provided that production from the industrial unit must commence within two years of allotment. Earlier, the petitioner challenged said order dated 07.07.2006 by filing writ petition No. 855 of 2006 (M/B), before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.08.2007, copy of which is anneuxre -17 to the writ petition. By said order, Division Bench of this Court directed respondent SIDCUL to decide representation of the petitioner on the lines of order dated 01.08.2007, passed in civil appeal No. 3402 of 2007 (SIDCUL Vs. M/s Jyoti Industries), by the Apex Court. In pursuance to the order dated 21.08.2007, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 855 of 2006 (M/B), a detailed representation is made by the petitioner on 27.09.2007 (copy of which is annexure -18 to the writ petition), before respondent No. 3. Said representation is rejected by respondent No. 3, vide its impugned order dated 02.11.2007 (copy of which is annexure -19 to the writ petition). Challenging said order and the earlier order dated 07.07.2006, passed by respondent No. 3, it is pleaded in the writ petition that no notice was given to the petitioner, as required under Clause 1.1 (a)(iv)(v) of the lease deed before determination of the lease. It is further pleaded that petitioners representation is rejected arbitrarily. It is also pleaded that petitioner had no dishonest intention or motive in not starting production in the unit. It is also stated by the petitioner that the ground taken in the representation were not considered by respondent No. 3. In para -55 of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner still wants to establish its unit for manufacturing the food products for which he had already invested 5.5 crores in setting up the industry.