THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13014 OF 2006 DATED:24.06.2010 Between:
Chedalla Janardhanaiah .. Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure, Corporation Limited, rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad And another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13014 of 2006 ORDER:
The petitioner is a proprietor of Wood Works/Country Wood Depot. By an order dated 16.07.1984, the second respondent allotted Plot No.78 admeasuring Acs.817.78 square yards in Industrial Estate (Wood Complex), Nellore, promoted by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC). The terms and conditions required him to utilize the land allotted only for the purpose of wood works business and complete the construction within a stipulated time. The possession was handed over on 05.02.1985 after the petitioner entered into an agreement. Subsequently, on payment of entire sale consideration, APIIC executed a registered sale deed on 08.09.1994. The petitioner contends that till 2002, he carried on wood works business, but due to restrictions imposed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and resultant shortage of wood, the wood industry faced recession and therefore the activity could not be carried on in the same pace.
The second respondent issued a show cause notice on 12.05.2006 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the allotment made in his favour shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation in 2006. Even before the same could be disposed of, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition alleging that there is a threat of coercive dispossession from the respondents.
This Court while admitting the Writ Petition suspended the impugned show cause notice.
The General Manager (Law), APIIC filed counter opposing the Writ Petition mainly on two grounds. As the jural relationship between the petitioner and APIIC is referable to a contract, the Writ Petition would not lie, as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal v State of Bihar[1]. The Writ Petition is also opposed placing reliance on Indu Kakkar v Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.[2] It is further contended by APIIC that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for APIIC, this Court finds force in the submission made by the Standing Counsel. It is axiomatic that ordinarily at the stage of show cause notice, a petition for judicial review cannot be entertained, because there is no such decision by the decision maker, which requires review by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice being Letter No.1666-A4/83, dated 12.05.2006. This exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, needless to mention, the petitioner’s possession – if he is in possession; shall not be disturbed.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(V.V.S. RAO, J) 24.06.2010
Note:- Dispatch C.C.
by 01.07.2010
(B/o) KH
[1] AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1496
[2] AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 296