TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing certain type of Units to set up their business - The Petitioners use and occupation has been termed as unauthorised and illegal. The initial letter of approval expired by its own force in 2001. Thereafter, beyond some correspondence there is nothing emanating from the authorities which would enable the Petitioners to argue and successfully that a letter of approval has been issued in their favour and the lease agreement must therefore follow. In such circumstances, we cannot utilize writ jurisdiction to force the authorities to pass any orders on the representation made by the Petitioners and to extend the letter of approval or to grant any fresh approval. That the authorities have not taken any decision on the pending Applications does not mean that the Petitioners can invoke the principle in Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1988 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] either. There the issue was of assessment under Sales Tax Act namely the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The returns were filed by the Assessee and those were not processed or assessed and that is how the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any prescribed period of limitation the assessment has to be com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 ₹ 98,530/-. 4. 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 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Authorities have not taken any decision on their pending Applications, if the inaction of the authorities for all these years has resulted in the Petitioners continuing to occupy the premises and using it for their legitimate business activities then, the least that this Court should do is to direct the Authorities to take a decision on the pending request promptly and expeditiously. Until then the request is not to disturb the Petitioners occupation use and possession of the premises. 6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Steel Tools Limited Anr. v. State of Haryana Anr. reported in 1988 (3) Supreme Court Cases 478. That is to urge that whenever Applications of the present nature are made they ought to be dealt with and decided within a reasonable time. The reasonableness however would depend on circumstances in each case. Mr. Naidu has invited our attention to the Annexures to Affidavit-in-Reply of the Deputy Development Commissioner to show that the appraisal reports styled as annual performance reports from 2001-2002 till 2011-2012 have indeed been received in the office of the Development Commissioner but their statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by taking advantage of any inaction of the public bodies or statutory authorities or by colluding with them. We cannot defeat the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Constitution itself by upholding the request of the Petitioners and parties like them. 10. It is too settled a legal position but requires reiteration now a days because of the ignorance of litigants and those advising them that writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked by dropping an application in the High Court and treating the High Court as drop box. The High Court cannot pass an order directing any statutory Authority or the State to consider some representation or pending application/letter of the litigant invoking the writ jurisdiction unless that party establishes such a legal right. In the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology Mining Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 264 this tendency of the High Courts has been strongly deprecated by the Hon ble Supreme Court by observing thus : 6. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of acknowledgment of a jural relationship to give rise to a fresh cause of action. 11. In the present case, the argument is not that no permissions for approvals are required or that the initial permission or approval granted prior to enactment of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 confers any absolute right. It is a conceded position that both the letter of approval and the tenancy agreement were valid for a specified period. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public good. The writ is equitable in nature and thus, its issuance is governed by equitable principles. Refusal of relief must be for reasons which would lead to injustice. The prime consideration for the issuance of the said writ is, whether or not substantial justice will be promoted .. 12. It has been explained in the Affidavit-in-Reply by the Respondents as to how the Petitioners are disentitled to any discretionary and equitable relief. It has been pointed out in the Affidavits that the issuance or extension of the letter of approval is to be considered by the approval committee which is a statutory authority constituted under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and is performance linked. The Unit is not eligible for extension of letter of approval based only on their performance but on satisfaction of the other relevant factors such as encouragement to varied industries or Units, the requirement of space so as to accommodate different or distinct nature of activities, making the Zone broad based and truly representative in character by not allowing certain type of Units to set up their business. 13. The Petitioners use and occupation has been termed as unauthoris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld statement about their performance as has now been made. They start in a guarded manner by saying that the projected export target was not achieved because a group named LG with whom the Petitioners tied up pulled out of the arrangement and set up their own center in Bangalore. The Petitioners were looking out for fresh initiatives in U.S.A. and they are hopeful of achieving the projected export in future. They may have had such business opportunities but we are on a more vital and fundamental issue namely the use and occupation of the premises. Those have to be allotted to deserving industrial units. Those Applicants and who are interested in establishing the Unit have to in terms of Rule 17 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 forward a proposal and in a specified form containing the relevant particulars. Thereafter these proposals have to be considered by an approval committee. If there is a decision taken to issue letter of approval that has to be in terms of Rules 17, 18 and 19. In such circumstances it is not as if the Units which are existing prior to the Act being enacted have any absolute right nor is it the claim. The definition of the terms in the Act and to which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as invalid. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. Such considerations may be that some directive principle is sought to be advanced or implemented or that the contract or the property is given not with a view to earning revenue but for the purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of a particular group or section of people deserving it or that the person who has offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given the contract or the property. We have referred to these considerations only illustratively, for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognized modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefitted by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favoritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State. 32. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organizations or institutions de hors an invitation or advertisement by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
