HINDUSTAN CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the petitioner this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs: -

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel by referring the papers placed on the record along with the impugned orders dated 16.6.2013 (Annexure -P -10) and 31.8.2013 (Annexure -P -12) passed by the authorities of the respondents no.3 & 2 respectively, has argued that the vide agreement dated 15.04.1972 (Annexure -P -1) the petitioner has entered into lease agreement with the respondent no.3 with respect of the plot no.5, situated in Industrial estate Jabalpur, having area 20,000 Sq. ft. According to which, such plot was given with possession on lease of 99 years to the petitioner -firm for industrial purpose to manufacture the Sodium Silicate etc., on the terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid lease deed. After obtaining the requisite permission and license from the competent authorities, the petitioner established the industry and started manufacturing of Sodium Silicate within the stipulated period and has also filed the return in this regard in the Office of the Central Excise in the year 2009 -10. Such industry had functioned smoothly for 39 years and there was no dispute between the petitioner and the respondents - Department, but in the year 2010 on diagnosis the cancer to the petitioner, she immediately rushed to the Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai for treatment and remained admitted there as indoor patient for some time. Due to the treatment of such diecease, the petitioner's become unable to continue the alleged Industry for some time. During such period on 25.11.2011 (Annexure -P -4), she received a show cause notice (Annexure -P -4) from the respondent no.3 contending that the petitioner has closed the industry and thereby violated the condition no.17 of the lease deed, with the direction to pay the rent Rs.10/ - and penalty Rs.1/ - and the maintenance charges and to comply the directions within a period of sixty days failing which, the allotment of the plot and the lease deed shall be cancelled. In compliance of the aforesaid show cause notice, the requisite rent, penalty and maintenance charges etc., were deposited by the petitioner on 5.12.2011 (Annexure -P -6) and thereafter on dated 7.12.2011, she has filed the reply of the show cause notice along with papers of the treatment (Annexure -P -5) contending that due to the cause of treatment, the Industry was remained closed for few months. Subsequent to filing the reply, near about after one year, the respondent no.3 has given her a fresh notice dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure -P -7) contending that the aforesaid Industry of the petitioner is closed since last one year in violation of the condition no.17 of the lease deed, with a direction to pay the rent of the year 2013 and maintenance charges with a further intimation that the rent of the plot is not being paid regularly in accordance with the condition no.2 of the lease deed and again the petitioner was directed to comply the terms of the lease within sixty days failing which, the lease deed and allotment order of the plot shall be cancelled. After depositing the requisite sum of the rent and charges, the reply of such show cause notice was filed on behalf of the petitioner on dated 3.4.2013 (Annexure -P -8) contending that she is suffering from cancer and due to that diecease, the manufacturing process of the Industry has been discontinued for few months and the same shall be started shortly. But without considering the abovementioned circumstances and the physical condition of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2013 (Annexure -P -10) and thereby, aforesaid lease deed and the allotment order of the plot have been cancelled. She was also informed regarding his right to file the appeal before the respondent no.2 on which, she has filed the appeal on dated 9.7.2013 (Annexure -P -11) challenging the order (Annexure -P -10) Inter -alia in such appeal, the aforesaid before the respondent no.2. ground of illness of the petitioner for discontinuing the manufacturing process of the Industry was stated. It is further stated that the manufacturing process will be started shortly as she has received the orders from various manufactures of soap Industry. But on consideration, without appreciating the grounds and the circumstances raised by the petitioner in the appeal, such appeal has been dismissed in a mechanical manner vide order dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure -P -12) thereby, the order dated 17.6.2013 of the respondent no.3 was affirmed. In continuation he said that, in view of the aforesaid grounds, the authorities of the respondents no.2 & 3 would have not cancelled the lease deed and the allotment of the aforesaid plot particularly when the alleged Industry was functioning continuously for 39 years and due to aforesaid diecease and illness of the petitioner, the manufacturing process was discontinued only for few months. He further said that the regular rent , penalty and the maintenance charges etc., were paid by the petitioner in compliance of the direction of the authorities of the respondent no.3 then, there was no occasion either to cancel the lease deed or allotment of such plot. He further said that, the impugned lease deed being granted for the manufacturing purpose could not be cancelled or terminated without issuing notice before six months from the date of cancellation of the same. In support of his arguments he also referred the papers thereby, some raw material were purchased by the petitioner -firm for the purpose to run the Industry and said that in such premises, it could not be said that the manufacturing process of the Industry has been closed. He further said that the grounds taken in the reply of the show cause notices were not considered with proper approach by the respondent no.3 and the impugned order Annexure -P -10 was passed. On filing the appeal, the appellate authority has not considered the same and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner and without extending the proper opportunity of hearing. With these submissions, he prayed for issuing the appropriate writ for quashment of the impugned orders by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the aforesaid plot was allotted to the petitioner long before vide order dated 31.3.1972 and in this regard, the lease deed dated 15.4.1972 (Annexure -P -1), was also executed between the parties. According to condition no.2 of the lease deed, the petitioner was bound to pay the regular lease rent and the maintenance charges etc., but it is apparent that the same was not paid regularly within the prescribed period in accordance with the terms of the lease. Besides this, inspite repeated notices on behalf of respondent no.3 to the petitioner to comply the terms of the lease, the manufacturing process of the alleged industry was not started for a longer period even between the period of the first show cause notice dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure -P -4) and of subsequent show cause notice dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure -P -7).