Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
(Per Sinha 'J' for the Bench)
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are admittedly valid allotties of the industrial plot by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') - the 2nd respondent. The allotment of the plot was done on 20th April, 2011 and the petitioners claim to have paid the entire premium amount between 1st July, 2012 and 1st July, 2017. Consequently, a registered lease deed came to be executed on 15th October, 2011. The petitioners' claim was that though formal possession letter came to be issued on 10th July, 2012 on account of serious opposition by the villagers blocking the passage to the plot but in the absence of any clear approach to the plot, the petitioners could not carry out the exercise of construction work over the plot and it is reiterated that virtually there was no physical possession given of the plot. Ultimately, the Corporation managed and facilitated the physical possession of the plot to the petitioners by executing the possession memo on 9th February, 2016. So, the petitioners claim, no project work could be started prior to 9th February, 2016. However, barely 9 months had passed the date of physical delivery of the plot that the respondent Corporation issued notice to the petitioners for not completing the construction work/ set up of an industrial unit within five years as prescribed for under the allotment order and it was provided that the petitioners may apply for extension of time in accordance with law and terms of allotment. The petitioners pleaded for waiver of the extension fee from 2011 to 2016 as he was denied possession for none of his fault but no heed was paid to his request and surprisingly a letter was issued to him on 25th October, 2017 making a demand of charges to the tune of Rs.12,29,859/- payment of which was to be done by 31st December, 2017 failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled. The petitioners treated it to be an illegal act, on the part of the respondent Corporation, of charging penalty and, accordingly represented the matter.
3. Relying upon certain clauses of the lease deed, the petitioners allege in the writ petition that they filed earlier a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.- 5250 of 2018 for quashing the demand note dated 10th May, 2017 and letter dated 15th May, 2017 that had been issued, to the extent it provided for cut off date as 31st December, 2017 and while the matter came up for hearing on 7th February, 2018 the Corporation informed that vide order dated 23th January, 2018 the lease itself has been cancelled. Consequently petitioner filed another Writ-C No.- 7331 of 2018 in which following order was passed:-
"Heard Mr. Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Corporation.
This petition basically challenges the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the respondent Corporation, cancelling allotment made in favour of petitioners of industrial plot bearing No. B-22, IIDC, District Chandauli, on the ground that petitioners did not complete/commence construction of their industrial unit within 18 months from the date of possession. Admittedly, possession was handed over to the petitioners on 9.02.2016. It appears that on 25.10.2017, the respondent Corporation had issued a letter to the petitioners, asking them to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,29,859/- with an application seeking extension of time to commence and complete the construction within time frame. Petitioners did not make the payment and, hence, the impugned order has been issued.
Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that petitioners are prepared to deposit the amount, as per letter/order dated 25.10.2017, unconditionally and the respondent Corporation may be directed to consider their request for restoration of the plot allotted to them and extend the time to make construction of industrial unit as per Additional Condition No.2 in the lease agreement dated 15.10.2011. Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that if petitioners make the payment, as aforementioned, the respondent Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to make payment of Rs. 12,29,859/- to the respondent Corporation within a period of 15 days from today. On such payment being made by petitioners, the respondent Corporation shall consider their request and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter."
4. In view of the directions as contained in the order dated 28th February, 2018 (supra) the petitioners paid the amount vide demand draft bearing No.- 335025 (Rs.6,14,930/-) and demand draft No.-028445 (Rs.6,14,930/-) issued by the Dena Bank and Bank of India respectively, alongwith covering letter dated 11th May, 2018. As it is clear from the order that the petitioners were to make payment within a period of 15 days from the date of the order dated 28th February, 2018 but the petitioners could pay the amount only by 11th May, 2018, the respondent rejected the application of the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the order of the High Court by depositing the requisite money within a period of 15 days from the date of order. It is this order dated 13th December, 2018 which has been impugned. The respondents have declined to renew the lease only on this above technical ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the order of the High Court within the prescribed period as provided under the order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have substantially complied with the order of the Court and the delay that has been caused in compliance, on account of the financial stress for which the petitioners could not manage the requisite money within the time specified by the Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no third party rights in respect of the plot in question has been created and the petitioners having not only paid the original premium amount but even the late fee and renewal charges, they stand prejudiced for no fault of their because the actual physical possession itself had been given to them only in the year 2016.
6. It is argued that the relevant clause of the allotment order should be read in such a manner so as to make it workable and that too quite sensibly because unless and until the physical possession of the land is given and an approach is provided to the plot, no construction work for setting up the industrial unit can be carried out. In the present case, it is submitted that the respondents have not denied that they have not been even delivered the possession prior to 9th February, 2016, the date when possession memo was executed.
7. Per contra, the argument advanced by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation is that it was the writ petition of the petitioners in which specific direction was issued and it would be taken to be an undertaking on his part otherwise he should have asked for some time when it was being provided in the order or he should have moved an appropriate application seeking extension of time for its compliance. He submits that the respondents cannot be taken to be at fault if the petitioners themselves have not been vigilant and have failed to comply themselves with the order passed on their own writ petition. However, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation does not deny that the plot still lies vacant and no third party right has been created in respect of the said plot.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments advanced across the Bar and having perused the record, we find that it is one of those cases where the Court should balance the equity. It is a case where an industrial plot has been allotted to a prospective entrepreneur to set up an industrial unit. U.P. State Industrial Corporation virtually provides platform for the entrepreneurs to set up their industrial units so as to give growth to the economy of the State as well as of the Nation. Therefore, the Corporation should always ensure that a safe and secured land is provided for setting up an industrial unit. It is duty of the Corporation to always ensure that physical possession of the allotted land is given in time and lease deed in respect of such plot is executed well within time. If an entrepreneur has come forward to believe the Corporation that a very safe and secured land was being provided at a fair price to set up an industrial unit, if such an entrepreneur is provided with a disputed land or a land of which physical possession is not given for long period of time then such an entrepreneur cannot be made to suffer for such misrepresentation at the end of the Corporation.
9. In the present case there is no grievance of the Corporation that the petitioners had been in default towards any payment schedule and if at all any dues was there, Corporation was well within its right to recover the same. But here we find that while the Corporation itself handed over the physical possession in February, 2016, strangely enough, it put the petitioners to notice for not setting up industrial unit within a year of such physical possession.
10. In our considered opinion, no magic can be done to set up an industrial unit within a span of 10 months or 12 months when the Corporation itself provided five years time as a condition for setting up industrial unit in the original allotment order. Such a situation, therefore, is quite unhappy one and if Corporation's action in taking such a coercive measure as is reflected from the orders passed by the Corporation from time to time in the present case is justified, no one will come forward to believe this Government agency and then it will be a serious blow to the industrial policy. A Constitutional Court cannot remain a passive spectator in such a situation. State run industrial policy is aimed at overall development of economy with which public interest is directly related. One must remember that unemployment in a developing economy is of prime concern. The employment to people is concomitant to industrial growth. While private players having huge financial background keep purchasing vast agricultural fields paying heavy considerations to poor farmers resulting in unchecked industries coming up giving serious jolt to agrarian economy, the unorganized and unchannelized growth brings more disparity and small and marginal industrialists looking forward to such a State run industrial Corporation with aspirations, get disappointed with Corporation failing to provide safe and secured land and in time delivery of possession. It is the duty of the Constitutional Courts to ensure that the Corporation takes pragmatic view of overall circumstances and render a helping hand to see that the purpose with which Corporation was set up is achieved. In our considered opinion the case in hand is one such case.
11. We, therefore, are of the view that if the petitioners have deposited all the surcharges including fee for renewal/ extension of time for setting up an industrial unit, there is full substantial compliance of the order of High Court.
12. It is true that the time period provided under the order of High Court was only 15 days but since no third party rights have accrued at the end of Corporation in respect of the plot in question, we see no justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioners only on account of such delayed compliance of Court's order. The order impugned does not assign any other reason either.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 13th December, 2018 and 29th December, 2018 are hereby quashed in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
14. The respondents are directed to consider the application for extension of time and renewal of the lease as the petitioners have already deposited the renewal amount as per the demand notice on 25th October, 2017 and positive direction be issued, positively within a period six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Atmesh (Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)