NIDUS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Nidus Enterprise Private Limited (for short, "NIDUS") has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging CAV judgment dated 14.3.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.16593 of 2013 to set aside order dated 30.10.2013 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the agreement dated 18.9.2012 executed between the appellant-petitioner and respondent no.2-Collector, Dang, came to be cancelled and possession of the land in question was ordered to be taken away, came to be rejected.

(2.) Learned Single Judge upon adverting to facts in the context of challenge to the order impugned and communication between the NIDUS and the competent authority, terms and conditions of agreement between the licensor viz. the District Collector, Dang District and licensee INDUS, the appellant-petitioner, and various terms and conditions contained in above agreement signed by the parties concluded that the prayers in the petition could not be entertained mainly on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and was guilty of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi in not disclosing notice dated 12.4.2013 and even subsequent notices. According to learned Single Judge, as such the petition was liable to be dismissed on the above ground alone and it was not a contention which could have been lightly brushed aside, however, in the context of submissions made about unjust, unfair and unreasonable manner in which the contract came to be terminated by the State authority and possession was ordered to be taken forthwith and the order passed by respondent nos.1 and 2 on the same date i.e. 30.10.2013 and the Collector issuing instruction to the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take possession and to report back, drawing panchnama etc. it was found that drawing of panchnama in the presence of panchas was a valid mode of taking possession of the land in the eye of law. Further, by referring to Clause 41 of the Agreement dated 18.9.2012, which contained the arbitration clause, whereby in a case of disputes and differences in connection with the terms of agreement, the dispute was first to be referred to the Collector, Dang for conciliation and in the event of failure in conciliation, dispute was to be referred to Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the licensor under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and by referring to decisions of the Apex Court, it was found that writ Court ordinarily would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to enter into the dispute and, as a result thereof, the writ petition came to be dismissed.

(3.) Before we deal with the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, in nutshell certain facts preceding the litigation are to be recorded.