JYOTI PRINTING INDUSTRY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was granted an allotment of land at the Industrial Estate, Badarpurghat subsequent to an application filed by the petitioner on 6/1/2000. This aspect was informed to the petitioner vide the communication dtd. 7/7/2001. In the said communication, it was specifically mentioned that the land rent of the area of 7056 sq. feet would be at @ Rs.0.35 paise per sq. feet per month subject to revision and enhancement of rates as fixed by the Government from time to time. The petitioner was also directed to execute a lease deed in that respect. Accordingly, on 17/7/2001, a lease deed was entered into by and between the Assam Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and the petitioner. In the said lease deed, it was specifically mentioned that the lease was valid for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of deed of lease provided that at the expiry of the present term, the lease may be renewed with the mutual consent of both the parties subject to the execution of legally valid documents. In the said lease deed, it was also stipulated that the amount to be paid as lease rent would be 0.35 paise per sq. feet.

(3.) Subsequent to the entering into the lease deed, the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Karimganj has issued a communication to the petitioner informing that the Government has newly revised the rent of the open space at the Industrial Estate vide the communication dtd. 5/9/2001 whereby within the Municipal area, the revised rent was 0.06 paise per sq. feet per month w.e.f. 1/1/2000 and for outside the Municipal area, it was 0.30 paise per sq. feet per month w.e.f from 1/1/2000. On the basis of the said communication, the petitioner submitted various representations to the concerned respondent authorities for the purpose of revising the terms of allotment as well as also in the lease deed. However, the respondent authorities did not take any steps in that regard and on the other hand, raised bills on the basis of the lease rent as stipulated in the lease deed. In the said process, the petitioner also did not pay the lease rent although demanded.