INFOQUEST INFOTECH PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1946. It states that it has its registered office in a zone which is entitled as Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The Respondents are the Authorities who have to develop and maintain such zones so as to promote setting up of industries and consequently the industrial growth in the State and the Nation as a whole. This is a case where a litigant approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and without satisfying essential prerequisites for invoking that jurisdiction, namely a legal or a constitutional right prays that some inaction of an authority called the Development Commissioner, second Respondent to the Writ Petition should visit him with a direction from this Court to consider the Petitioners request so as to allow them to continue and utilize Unit No. 101, SDF-IV, SEEPZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 096.

(2.) In the present case on the own showing of the Petitioners by virtue of an Application made before the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 was enacted they were granted permission for setting up an industrial unit for development of computer software and services. An Application was made on 11th August 1995 for grant of such permission and on 10th October 1995 a letter of approval was issued in favour of the Petitioners. That letter of approval itself sets out the terms and on which the Petitioners have based their case. It has been categorically stated therein that this letter is valid for a period of one year from the date of its issue for commencement of commercial production and will automatically lapse if an Application for the extension of the validity period of this letter of approval is not made before the expiry of the said period of one year. On 1st May, 1996 letter of possession in respect of this Unit ad-measuring 334 square meters was issued which is conditional upon execution of a lease agreement and levy of lease rent. The Petitioners themselves have set out in the Petition that the general bond was executed by them on 1st August 1996 and thereafter there was an agreement executed on 14th October, 1996. The agreement is styled as tenancy agreement and on the own showing of the Petitioners was valid for period of five years from the first day of the month and year of possession at annual rent of Rs. 98,530/-.

(3.) Thereafter, what the Petitioners have been projecting before this Court is that despite due fulfillment of the obligations and carrying on legitimate business activities with positive results the approval in their favour was not renewed. It is contended that upon the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 coming into force, the Petitioners are not required to apply for an approval in terms of the provisions therein namely, Section 15 sub-section (1), the proviso thereof has been relied upon to urge that an existing Unit shall be deemed to have been set up in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such Units shall not require approval under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. It is then urged that a letter of approval under Rules 18 and 19 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 which fall under Chapter III of the Rules envisage a proposal for approval of the Unit, its consideration and eventual approval however, sub-rule (6) thereof is pointed out by Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners to urge that the letter of approval shall be valid for five years from the date of commencement of production or service activity and it shall be construed as license for all purposes and to authorize operations and after completion of five years from the date of commencement of production the Development Commissioner may at the request of the Unit extend validity of the letter of approval for a further period of five years at a time.