9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tension/renewal of their Letter of Approval and to permit the petitioners to continue their operation for the factory located at the address shown in the cause title of the petition; [C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay implementation and execution of the decision of the respondent no. 2 in refusing renewal and extension and be further pleased to direct the respondents, their servants and agents to allow the petitioner to continue their SEZ operations in accordance with the Letter of Approval dated 15th May 1996 with all facilities and benefits available under the SEZ Scheme. [D] An ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer 25 (C) above may kindly be granted." Brief facts of the case are as follows : Petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of reprocessing of plastic waste/scrap and also in manufacture of textile products from the used clothing, and whereas, the petitioner no. 2 is one of its partner [hereinafter referred to as, "the petitioner-firm"]. The petitioner-firm has its manufacturing unit situated within Kandla Special Economic Zone ["SEZ" for brevity], since 1996. The petitioner-firm was earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , addressed various letters to the respondent-authorities pointing out the error in withdrawing the proposal for extension, which yielded result in the form of recommendation by respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 2 for renewing the LoA of the petitioner-firm. This was by a communication dated 28th October 2014. Ironically, the case of the petitioner was not put up before the respondent no. 2 for extension for a long time, followed by various reminders for granting extension. Ultimately, on 3rd July 2017, despite the recommedation by the respondent no. 3 for extension of petitioners' LOA, the respondent no. 2 rejected the same, and hence, this writ petition. Heard learned advocates for the respective sides. Assailing the impugned action of the respondent-authorities of rejecting extension of LoA of the petitioner-firm, learned advocate Shri Paritosh Gupta appearing for the petitioners termed it as a gross disregard to the principles of natural justice, in asmuch as, the order of rejection not only having been passed without assigning any reasons, but no hearing has been granted to the petitioner before passing of the said order. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents drew attention of this Court to Rule 18 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 which bars setting up of any new Unit for recycling of plastic waste as well as for recycling of used clothings under Rule 18[4](a) and 18[4](c) of the said Rules. Counsel, however, fairly conceded that proviso to the above rules empowers the Board of Approval, which is an inter-ministerial body constituted under Section 8 of the SEZ Act, 2006 to decide extension of the validity of LoA granted earlier to such units. Therefore, intermittently after 31st October 2010, LoA was renewed on piece-meal basis till 30th September 2012, as the concerned Ministry was undertaking an exercise for putting into place a separate policy for regulating the activities of both plastic recycling as well as worn clothing units. Accordingly, till its finalization in the year 2013, all such units of SEZs were granted extensions of their LoA in a piece meal basis after 31st November 2013; except that of the petitioner-firm. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that during the five year block period of 2005-2010, the petitioners' unit was not in operation for majority of the period without any valid explanation, and therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the petitioner-firm and particularly its inactiveness during the past seven years; especially in relation to sensitive activity of plastic recycling business of imported plastic scrap does not merit re-consideration, in absence of any specif reasons, and therefore, the respondent-authorities have aptly rejected plea for extension of LoA moved by the petitioner-firm, which action does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the documents available on record, it appears that on 12th /14th July 2017, the petitioner was informed by a communication addressed by the respondent no. 3; referring to the letter dated 8th February 2017 as well as e-mail dated 27th April 2017 of the petitioner in respect of renewal of LoA for recycling of plastic waste and scrap, proposal for renewal of LoA for extension of re-cycling of plastic waste and scrap was considered by the BoA in its 78th meeting which was held on 3rd July 2017, stating that after due deliberations, the BoA had rejected the aforesaid proposal. It app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units of SEZs were granted extension of their LoA in piecemeal manner till 31st November 2013; except the petitioners' unit for their plastic recycling business. Again a request was made by the petitioners' Unit for renewal of their LoA for plastic recycling business and the same was forwarded to the ministry on 20th February 2017 for consideration in the BoA meeting. Finally, on 3rd July 2017, request for renewal of their LoA was taken into consideration in a meeting and proposal of the petitioner-Unit for renewal of LoA for extension of recycling of plastic waste and scrap was rejected. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the petitioner's case requires reconsideration by the authority particularly to examine the similarity with other existing units which according to the petitioners were granted renewal despite being non operational for extended period. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby partly allowed. The order passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the proposal for extension/renewal [as recorded at Item No. 78.5 (ii) of the minutes of meeting held on 3rd July 2017] and the covering letter dated 14th J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
