Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with following prayers:
"(a) to quash and set aside the order/letter as per Annexure-F dtd. 25-5-2011 passed by Regional Manager, G.I.D.C. Vapi for the respondents as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and direct the respondents to hear and consider the application/representation dtd. 3-4-2010 as per Annexure-C in view of the order dtd. 25-3-2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 506/2010 as per Annexure-B afresh immediately and to allow the petitioner firm to re-start business at Shed No. A-1/6, GIDC Estate, Navsari forthwith;
(b) to quash and set aside the refund order dated 8-8-2011 as per Annexure-H signed by the Divisional Manager, (SG) GIDC Vapi as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and to consider the petitioner firm to have paid Rs. 23,07,663.00 against dues of the petitioner as mentioned in the said refund order and as treated uptil now as deposit as per Annexure-P colly.
(c) to restrain the respondents their servants and agents from disturbing with the possession of the petitioner firm of the industrial shed no. A-1/6, GIDC Estate, Navsari AND/OR to deal or further deal with the same shed/plot during the pendency, admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(d) to grant cost of this petition and also to grant any other relief which may be deemed just and necessary in the case;"
Facts in brief leading to filing this petition, as could be culled out from the memo of petition, deserves to be set out as under.
The petitioner's firm was allotted Shed No. A-1/6 at GIDC, Navsari on 29.03.1975. On account of unfortunate incidence, the Union Bank of India, from whom the financial aid was taken applied its seals to the Shed in the year 1977 and as submitted by the petitioner in the memo of petition, GIDC also applied its second lock in the year 1980. The petitioner was constrained to file suit against Union Bank of India for reopening the unit Shed and as per the out-come of the First Appeal No. 863/1991 vide order dated 18.06.1993, the petitioner received keys from the Bank but the lock of GIDC remained. The petitioner was constrained to file Civil Suit No.44/1998 for obtaining keys and permission for running the industry and ultimately the suit came to be withdrawn. In the mean time on representations of the industries association some attempt was made to find way out for unlocking and taking possession of the premises. However, the petitioner was not handed over the keys and a short eviction notice came to be issued on 07.03.2008 demanding dues of Rs.22,94,406/- and further on 25.03.2008 a demand was made to Rs.19,038/-. This amount was paid by the petitioner, but it was of no avail and hence the petitioner filed Special Civil Application being S.C.A. No.15190 of 2008 with prayer for issuance of direction to G.I.D.C., Navsari to permit the petitioner to restart the business in the said Shed No. A-1/6 G.I.D.C., Navsari and quashing and setting aside the communications dated 17.08.2007, 31.03.2008, 02.04.2008 and 08.07.2008. This matter was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2010, which was carried into appeal being L.P.A. No.506 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.03.2010, wherein petitioner was given liberty to make representation and if so made, consider the same and the L.P.A. was disposed of. Pursuant to the said order, as stated by the petitioner, the representation was made on 03.04.2010, wherein the entire list is narrated and thereafter also reminders were sent, but those reminders were also of no avail, as ultimately an order came to be passed on 25.05.2011 informing the petitioner that representation is not accepted by the authority and therefore, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Corporation could not have rejected the representation, as in view of the policy annexed at page no.36, the representation of the petitioner was required to be considered in light thereof, and at least reasoned order could have been passed when the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. had permitted the petitioner to make representation and therefore, the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the rejection of earlier matter by this Court (Coram: K.S.Jhaveri, J.) vide order dated 26.02.2010 could not have been considered by the authority for rejecting the representation dated 03.04.2010 and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the L.P.A. is not withdrawn and in fact the L.P.A. was disposed of while disposing of the L.P.A. the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to make representation and in turn the respondent-G.I.D.C. was ordered to consider the same and therefore, there ought to have been complete compliance with order passed by the Division Bench, pursuant whereof the present petitioner filed representation on 03.04.2010. The order impugned dated 25.05.2011 at page 34 cannot be said to be due compliance with the order of the Division Bench and therefore on the said ground also the petition may be accepted and allowed.
Learned advocate appearing for respondent-G.I.D.C. invited this Court's attention to the observations made by this Court while disposing of and dismissing the matter being S.C.A. No. 15190 of 2008 on 26.02.2010 and contended that those observations are not in any manner water down or quashed by the Appellate Bench in L.P.A. The findings and the observations recorded therein are still there, therefore, it was a very limited scope left to the G.I.D.C. for consideration of the representation.
Learned advocate for the respondent-G.I.D.C. further submitted that without prejudiced to the aforesaid contention, even on merits also, if one looks at the events and developments in respect of plot no. A-1/6, one would not accept the request for restoration of the plot even as per new policy sought to be relied upon and reproduced at page no.36.
Learned advocate for respondent-G.I.D.C. invited this Court's attention to the orders in L.P.A. and submitted that even the Division Bench has also not in any manner opined against the observations made therein and therefore, the liberty reserved to the petitioner was required to be viewed from that angle also.
This Court is of the considered view that the petition is required to be rejected for the following reasons namely:-
(i) The entire development qua plot no. A-1/6 i.e. plot in question would go to show that the petitioner consistently failed in meeting his obligations arising out of the allotment of plot in question. May be it could be unfortunate occurrence on the part of the petitioner or circumstances but that in itself would not be sufficient to persuade any public authority to accept request of restoration of the plot which has already been allotted to other party, as could be seen from the averments on page no.68 in the compilation of this petition.
(ii) The reasoning adopted by this Court also would be sufficient to dissuade any authority from exercising its discretion in favour of the petitioner, as those observations are not water down in any manner.
(iii) The petitioner has not indicated any special reasons apart from the reasoning not justifying restoration in his case. The representation dated 03.04.2010, unfortunately does not even refer to the policy of 2009 at page no.36, which was very much available when the Division Bench was disposing of the matter vide its order dated 25.03.2010. Assuming for the sake of examining without holding that even if the petitioner has not relied upon that also when the Division Bench has disposing of the matter it was duty cast upon the Corporation to take into consideration of representation of the petitioner, then also if one looks all the developments of the events so far as plot in question is concerned, then one would not desist conclusion that the rejection of the request was amicably justified on the part of the Corporation.
The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court is of the view that petitioner has failed in making exercise of extra ordinary power for interference by this Court. Hence, the same deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top