Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2148 - HC - Indian LawsMaking of SPV for establishing SEZ - Whether the selection process done by the second respondent, namely the Government of Puducherry in selecting the strategic partner of SPV, was proper and in accordance with the minimum expected norms and procedures - Held that:- No comparative discussion of merits is available to discard their doubt. Unless a thorough analysis of comparative merits and abilities is made and set out in the selection proceedings in writing, the appellants cannot claim themselves as the most suitable persons for executing the project. Therefore, we are of the view that the merits and abilities of the appellants, as claimed by them, even assuming to be true, itself, cannot give rise to a cause of action for them to challenge the impugned proceedings, when the very inception of the appellants, itself is bad in the eye of law. Whether the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, is justified in directing the Government of Puducherry to cancel the entire agreement with the strategic partner - Held that:- it is clear that the ex-post-facto approval was given for transfer of the lands by PIPDIC to SPV only. However, the PIPDIC and SPV have not chosen to challenge the subsequent impugned proceedings of the Ministry of Home Affairs and on the other hand, they returned the entire lands to the Government of Puducherry by abandoning the project itself. Under those circumstances, the appellants being only developers, cannot have any independent claim or right to challenge the cancellation, as admittedly they cannot act independently or parallely, that too against the interest of the PIPDIC or SPV. Whether the appellants are entitled to raise the grounds of "promissory estoppel" and "legitimate expectation" under the facts and circumstances of the case - Held that:- The appellant-Om Metal entered through backdoor, which was approved by the selectee just like a cake-walk. With all these lapses, irregularities and illegalities, if the selection is made, certainly the selected person, namely the appellants, can never be permitted to plead that the action of the respondents in cancelling the agreement subsequently, is hit by the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. - Person who obtained such promise, cannot plead estoppel against the promisor. This is what the position in the case of the legitimate expectation also. Whether the appellants are entitled to insist upon issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the SEZ Act, when the PIPDIC, the applicant for setting up of the SEZ, had returned the entire lands and abandoned the entire project - Held that:- the appellants who are not having any independent right more than what PIPDIC or SPV can have, cannot seek for issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the SEZ Act. Whether the impugned actions have violated the principles of natural justice and whether following of such principle is warranted under the facts and circumstances of the present case - Held that:- objection or explanation must be in a position to make the authority concerned to take a different view also, other than the one proposed already. To put it in a nut-shell, there must be two views possible, one in favour and the other against the noticee. Only under such circumstances, the requirement of issuing notice and following the principles of natural justice arises. If no other view is possible or the explanation or objection to be made by such person cannot alter or have any bearing on the decision to be taken, there is no need to issue such notice. In those cases, issuance of notice would be only an empty formality. - Decided against Appellant.
|