SANGHI MOTORS BOMBAY PVT LTD Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER has come up on application filed u/art. 226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of interim order passed by this court dt. 29th september, 2008. However, looking to the nature of controversy, this court considers it proper to dispose of petition finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) PETITIONER in the instant petition has challenged the order Ann. 16 dt. 1st August, 2008 whereby the respondent has demanded the charges regarding sub-letting premium for the period from 1st October, 1994 to 20th May, 2004 of rs. 31,07,710/-to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issuance of order impugned. As alleged by the petitioner, M/s. Sanghi Motors [bombay] Private Ltd. is running oxygen and acetylene manufacturing unit under the name and style of M/s. Kota Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. which is owned and controlled by the same management of the petitioner Company over the plot No. Spl. 1, chambal Industrial Area, Kota allotted to the petitioner Company by respondent by lease deed dt. 24th May, 1973 and for sub-letting lease premise permission was to be obtained from the respondent on payment of rent of sub-letting premium. However, after depositing one month's rent for sub-letting premium it was later on represented to the respondent seeking exemption from depositing sub-letting premium and the respondent after taking note of their relevant rules/regulations or policy decision as the case may be, granted exemption to the petitioner company from depositing sub-letting premium w. e. f. 1st October, 1994 to the date of issuance of order Ann. 15 dt. 20th May, 2004. However, after four years of passing of order granting exemption from charging sub-letting premium from petitioner company unilaterally the respondent issued an order Ann. 16 dt. 1st August, 2008 whereby the permission granting exemption from sub-letting premium from 1st October, 1994 to 20th May, 2004 was withdrawn and the petitioner Company was directed to deposit sub-letting premium for the aforesaid period within 30 days.

(3.) ONE of the contention advanced by counsel for petitioner is that once the respondent has granted them exemption from charging sub-letting premium vide order Ann. 15 dt. 20th May, 2004 w. e. f. 1st October, 1994 revoking the said order and directing the petitioner to deposit sub-letting premium charges for the aforesaid period is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and on this count alone it is not legally sustainable.