TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .54073/2018 & 8214/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - MR. G.S. SISTANI AND MS. JYOTI SINGH JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankul Chandra Pradhan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.C. Patnaik, Advts. Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC, Mr. Farman Ali and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advts. G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm submits that the petitioner was awarded an Export House No.0006 on 22.01.2004 for achieving good export turnover. Consequently, plot bearing no.129G34/35 measuring 1290 square meters was allotted to the petitioner firm on 21.10.2004. Keeping in view the high export turnover, the office of the Development Commissioner vide their letter dated 23.12.2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions, submits that since the order of the appellate authority is not a reasoned order, the petitioner would be satisfied if one opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner to explain his case and thereafter, the appellate authority be directed to pass a reasoned order. Learned senior counsel further submits that in case the request so made is acceptable, he would not press the prayer made with regard to the challenge to the vires of the section 8 (2)(g), 8(6) 8(7) of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 (SEZ Act ) (28 of the 2005). 3. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that this case has a chequered history as two writ petitions were filed earlier. In fact, the second writ petition was not maintainable as the earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-2011 3,15,868 69.30 43.11% 2011-2012 3,64,478 76.01 15.39% 2012-2013 4,76,159 87.45 31% 2013-2014 4,94,077 81.67 4% 2014-2015 4,63,770 75.84 -6.13% 2015-2016 4,67,337 71.38 0.77% 2016-2017 5,23,637 78.07 12.05% 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in view the past record, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before us that the order passed by the Appellate Court is extremely harsh. It has also been contended that the order of the Appellate Court is devoid of any reason and has prayed for one opportunity to explain the stand of the petitioner before the appellate authority. 8. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Appellate Court is reproduced below: The approval Committee deliberated on the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the unit has been lying nonfunctional since 2010-11 and even after giving enough opportunities the unit has failed to re-start its activities. The Approval Committee did not find any merit in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 212] and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] .) (emphasis added) 10. Reading of the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the appellate authority would show that the said order is not a reasoned order. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of this case, we set aside the order of the Appellate Court. 11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and having regard to the facts, we find that the order of the appellant court is not a reasoned order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the appellate court. The appellate court will grant one opportunity of hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
