TAVOY APPARELS LIMITED Vs. KANDLA SEZ AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for setting aside the communication dated 06.01.2011, addressed by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner giving the calculation of the lease rent of the three sheds which were allotted to the petitioner by the respondent No.1.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally allotted five sheds in Sector-III of Kandla SEZ, Gandhidham. However, on account of the earthquake in the year 2011, the petitioner could not undertake further operations in the sheds. On account of this and various other reasons, proceedings under the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the "the Act") was under taken against the petitioner and the Estate Officer passed an order directing eviction. The order of Estate Officer was challenged before the District Court as per the provisions of the Act and the District Court was pleased to grant stay on the operation of the order of eviction. However, before the order could be effected, the respondent-authority evicted three sheds out of five sheds and removed the machinery of three sheds and put the same in two sheds. The two sheds were thereafter sealed and continued in the custody of the respondent-authority, whereas the custody of the three sheds namely Shed Nos.223, 224 and 423 continued to be in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was one such unit which was allotted shed No.223 and 224 on 07.10.1986 and Shed No.221 and 222 on 27.05.1994 and land behind Shed No.235, Sector-III (Now renamed as plot No.423) on 15.02.1996. In the wake of Eviction order dated 20.06.2002 Shed Nos.221, 222 and 235 have already been evicted and Panchnama submitted before the Estate Officer on 03.7.2002 and 05.07.2002 (Panchnama Enclosed) (Exhibit-1) before the order from the Court received on 06.07.2002 presently only the shed Nos.223 and 224 are in the possession of the unit which the authority have not evicted in deference of the order of the Court.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate Mr.P.Y.Divyeshwar appearing for respondent No.2-authority strongly objecting the petition by submitting that it is on account of the petitioner's own inaction that the present situation has arisen. It is submitted that by a detailed order, the Estate Officer has come to the conclusion that several reasons existed for evicting the petitioner from the public premises which otherwise could be better and profitable use.