TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extent of non-implementation of the project. Whether the scheme proposed by SIPCOT in these cases are proper and acceptable or it requires any interference? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, an allotment of land by the Government or its Agency on lease would be on affordable cost, when it is compared with any private land taken on lease and it will be the same in case of outright purchase also. Such being the case, the petitioners cannot expect the SIPCOT, a Government Agency to leave the lands in the hands of some persons and wait endlessly for the petitioners to implement the projects - the allotment of lands by SIPCOT is not a sale, but, only a lease for ninety nine years. It comes with a default clause of cancellation of lease which indirectly intends for industrial development in the State within a reasonable period and the resultant revenue therefrom. One cannot dispute that the inaction or delay in implementation of the project will certainly have impact to a greater extent on the industrial development in the State. The petitioners-industrial corporations, having already enjoyed such holiday period due to the inaction or flexible action taken by the officials of SIPCOT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1971 under the Companies Act, 1956 with an object of promoting industrial development in the State and thereby facilitating the establishment of balanced growth and dispersal of industries in the State. Therefore, the SIPCOT had acquired lands from various land owners by following due process of law and after making payment of compensation for the sole purpose of promoting industrial development in the State. In such a process, the writ petitioners got allotment of lands on lease for a period of 99 years in their favour for setting up industries of their own. The petitioners appear to have paid the lease amount fixed by the SIPCOT, which is two fold viz., (i) plot deposit and (ii) development charges. Such allotments were made long ago viz., nearly a decade or two ago. Lease Deeds were executed between the respective petitioners and the SIPCOT and No Objection Certificates were granted to them enabling them to implement the project by obtaining all clearances and infrastructure from various Departments and loans/financial assistance from the Banks. A nominal annual lease rent was also fixed by the SIPCOT. One of the conditions stipulated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd. and ors ((2005) 4 SCC 456) iv) Ramakrishna Engineering Company v. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (W.P.No.2022 of 2009) v) Tech Mahindra Limited v. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (W.P.No.6872 of 2009) vi) Punjab Financial Corporation v. Surya Auto Industries ((2009) 1 SCC 297) vii) M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and Ors. vs. Hari Om Enterprises and Ors. ((2009) 16 SCC 208) viii) The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Ors. v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. ((2013) 5 SCC 470) ix) Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. ((2019) 11 SCC 422). 7. The learned Advocate General would further submit that when once the allotment is made in favour of the petitioners/industrial corporations and No Objection Certificates are issued, the role/burden of the SIPCOT is reduced and almost it is exhausted and it is the petitioner, who has to take steps for getting clearances from various Departments and avail the financial assistance and the delay that had occurred in such things cannot be attributed to the SIPCOT and that too wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he event of non implementation of the project within the stipulated period of 30 months, the SIPCOT has come forward with a scheme for entertaining the same petitioners/industrial corporations to retain the land and implement the project rather than cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioners, however, subject to payment of a penalty in proportion to the present value of the land and in consonance with the extent of non-implementation of the project. 11. Based on such offer made by the SIPCOT, the details of the petitioners/industrial corporations are tabulated as under for ready reference:- W.P.No. Plot/ Extent Cost (in lakhs) Date of allotment Status Diff. cost (in lakhs) Penalty proposed (in lakhs) 14877/ 2020 36-B 3.00 acres 618.87 17.11.2012 Vacant. Constructed upto plinth level 63.38 63.38 (100%) 15052/ 2020 K-30,31 32 - 3.00 acres 275.00 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 2021 C2/1N 2.25 acres 298.00 23.8.2006 Constructed shed measuring 0.16 acres and balance 1.88 acres not yet started constitution 220.50 220.50 (100%) 6803/ 2021 17/A-28 - 1 acre 193.00 2.4.2004 Vacant. Except compound wall 534.00 534.00 (100%) 7140/ 2021 CP-5A - 2.00 acres 1500.00 3.10.2013 Constructed upto lintel and basement level. Utilisation about 25% 433.20 86.64 (20%) 12. Despite the above offer made by SIPCOT, the learned counsel for the petitioners have raised some specific contentions in support of their case and they have been clarified by the learned Advocate General. 13. In the case of M/.Saravana Sastha Steel Pvt. Ltd., petitioner in W.P.No.14877 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court that there was incorrect calculation with regard to the differential cost and 1.68 crores had been demanded, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. He would also submit that reduction in penalty to 40 lakhs cannot be accepted as it has been imposed as per the prevailing policy. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the penalty proposed as against the petitioner is 100% differential cost. 18. With regard to M/s.Quest Healthcare P. Ltd., Hosur, the petitioner in W.P.No.15977 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not proceed with the development due to pending environmental clearance, which has been clarified by the learned Advocate General that no exemption is provided in the agreement for calculation of time taken for obtaining approvals such as EC and the petitioner had knowingly and willingly entered into the agreement to develop and run the industry within the stipulated time under the allotment agreement entered by them with SIPCOT. He would also submit that although the petitioner had utilized only 1 acre out of the 4 acres allotted to them, considering the development activity, they have been directed to pay only 20% of the differential cost. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the penalty proposed as against the petitioner is 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted for that extent and so far as the extent of land required/retained by the allottee for implementation of the project, they will have to pay 100% differential cost for the extent of the land retained by them and they will have to implement the project within 12 months. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the penalty proposed as against the petitioner is 100% differential cost for the extent of the land retained by them as of now and in the event of surrender of unused land, the quantum of differential cost payable by the petitioner could be reduced. 22. Three grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (M/s.Dignity Innovations P. Ltd) in W.P.No.20220 of 2020, that no amenities were provided till 2013 and some relief was provided to similarly placed industries, but, not to the petitioner and show cause notice was not served on the petitioner. 23. The above contentions have been replied by the learned Advocate General contending that in the apparel park, formation of internal roads, construction of box culverts, pipe culverts and side drains were completed during the year 2007 itself and therefore, they petitioner cannot simp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is currently 50% differential cost and it would be reduced to 20% in the event of surrender of 2 acres of land as opted by the petitioner. 26. Sofar as M/s.Geebee Garments P. Ltd., petitioner in W.P.No.2162 of 2021 is concerned, the ground raised by them is that they had not been given proper opportunity or time before issuing the impugned order. It has been replied by the learned Advocate General that the original allotment of land in favour of the petitioner on 5.10.2005 was cancelled on 24.1.2011 after more than 5 years as there was no development, but, it was later revoked on 3.5.2017 as per the Board-s decision dated 26.6.2013 and Government Order No.6, Industries (MIG.1) Department dated 10.1.2014 and the allottee was required to commence the project before the end of July and to commence the commercial production before the end of December 2017, but, the petitioner has not complied with the same till, except construction of a compound wall date and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take such a stand that they had not been provided with opportunity or time before issuing the impugned order. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate General would clarify that originally, Plot Nos.B-7 and B-8 measuring 23.14 acres was allotted to the petitioner-s parent company and after a few transactions of bifurcation/transfer/reallotment, SIPCOT had accorded approval for transfer of leasehold right of Plot No.B-7/2 measuring an extent of 6.30 acres of land in favour of the petitioner on 20.3.2020 without demanding any differential land cost, but, granting extension of time for implementing the project by the end of December 2020, however, since there is not development, the petitioner is categorized as 100% penalty payable industry. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the penalty proposed as against the petitioner is 100% differential cost. 31. In the case of M/s.GPR Power Solutions P. Ltd., petitioner in W.P.No.5090 of 2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 9.2.2013 seeking -change of use- for which, there is no response from SIPCOT and such a cause is attributed for not implementing the project. 32. The learned Advocate General had replied for the same contending that a perusal of the file reveals that no such letter had been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a direction to conduct an enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law and accordingly, the petitioner was called for a meeting on 10.3.2020 and the petitioner had also filed a written statement on 19.3.2020, however, their case was categorized as 100% penalty payable industry without considering the aspect that the lis pending between the petitioner and SIPCOT in the earlier writ petition came to an end only on 30.9.2019 and therefore, they are entitled to waiver of penalty sought to be imposed. 36. The learned Advocate General would submit that as the petitioner-s case is a unique one having approached the Court at the earliest instance, it is under active consideration of SIPCOT and the claim of the petitioner can be considered, provided the petitioner adheres to a strict schedule and commences the production. 37. Though the petitioner M/s.Mayara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (W.P.No.7140 of 2021), claims that they have fully used the land and therefore, the differential cost sought to be imposed may be reduced, the learned Advocate General would submit that considering the construction activity of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners-industrial corporations, having already enjoyed such holiday period due to the inaction or flexible action taken by the officials of SIPCOT, cannot expect that they can escape from the monetary liability. 43. Of course, while appreciating the initiative steps taken by the learned Advocate General Mr.Vijay Narayanan and Mr.Karthikeyan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of SIPCOT for giving quietus to the issue, the lethargy on the part of the bureaucrats of SIPCOT in taking steps at any early date for cancellation of lease or recovery of additional cost for the land cannot be simply brushed aside. Similarly, while considering the progressive steps taken by some of the petitioners/industrial corporations to implement the project, the sluggishness on the part of some of the petitioners at frequent intervals cannot also be simply ignored. 44. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners have been properly addressed by the learned Advocate General and the scheme suggested by SIPCOT is fully acceptable. Therefore, this court feels appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
