THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.8959, 8992, 8993 and 8994 of 2003
DATED:29.06.2010 Between:
WRIT PETITION No.8959 of 2003
Sri Aruna Automobiles, 20-68-4, Ramadas Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District, rep., by its Partner .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director And another .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.8992 of 2003
M/s.K.V.R.Axles, Plot No.40, I.D.A., Kakinada, East Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director And another .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.8993 of 2003
M/s.Sri Aruna Industries, Plot No.9, IDA., Kakinada, East Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director And another .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.8994 of 2003
M/s.Sri Anuradha Auto Service, Sambamurthy Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director And another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.8959, 8992, 8993 and 8994 of 2003
COMMON ORDER:
These four writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as they came to be filed with a similar background and involve similar question for determination.
The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited (APIIC) is Government of Andhra Pradesh undertaking established with an object of providing infrastructural facilities to small and medium scale industries by acquisition of land, development of land, provision of electricity, water and roads and other facilities. APIIC established industrial park in 1990 in Kakinada Town. All the petitioners were allotted plots admeasuring different extents of land for establishment of small scale units for the manufacture of automobile parts. As per the allotment letters, they were required to pay 50% of the cost of the plot immediately after allotment and the balance 50% with 20% interest within a period of one year. The allottees are also obliged to establish a factory within a period of two years. Any default thereof would entail in allotment cancellation. As the petitioners did not pay the amounts, notice of cancellation was issued to comply with the terms and conditions. The petitioners then filed the Writ Petitions. This Court advised the parties to settle the dispute outside the Court. Pending the same, the petitioners approached APIIC for settlement. The Corporation then addressed communications to the petitioners to pay the balance of cost with interest at 10% upto 31.07.1995 and the balance amount of 50% with 20% interest for one year and 22% after one year. The amount payable by the allottees was also specified. Aggrieved by those communications all these present Writ Petitions are filed.
The particulars of the area, cost of the plot, date of allotment and the date of communication impugned in the Writ Petitions are as follows.
This Court admitted these Writ Petitions on 06.05.2003. Subsequently, on 13.02.2008, the Writ Petitions were dismissed for default. The second respondent then issued proceedings/letter dated 11.03.2008 cancelling the allotment. It is only thereafter the petitioners filed appropriate applications seeking to set aside the orders dismissing the Writ Petitions for default. They were restored on 17.04.2008. At that stage, APIIC through its General Manager (Law) filed counter affidavit opposing the Writ Petitions inter alia on the ground that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable.
These matters were heard on 15.06.2010. It was brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the petitioners and APIIC negotiated the matter leading to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) agreeing to offer 50% of the land at the allotted rate and the balance 50% of land at the present prevailing market rate. The matters were adjourned at the request of the petitioners for filing affidavits bringing out the subsequent events, which are very much relevant. When the matters are called today, such affidavits are filed, which are all in similar terms. The petitioner in W.P.No.8959 of 2003 in the affidavit filed today in the Court made the following averments.
… Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation to the 2nd respondent on 20.07.2009 expressing its readiness to get the matter settled through negotiations as suggested by this Hon’ble Court. The Executive Director of the 1st respondent – Corporation sent a reply to the petitioner vide its letter No.86/DW/D6-K/08 dated 12.09.2009, which was received by the petitioner on 22.09.2009, informing that their CMD has considered to offer 50% of the land at the allotted rate and balance 50% of land at the present prevailing rate on ORS basis as per ORS terms and conditions of allotment and subject to payment of legal charges and further stated that the sale deed will be issued only after implementation of the project and the implementation of the project shall be within two (2) years. Since the conditions imposed in the said letter by the respondent – Corporation are onerous, the petitioner has not agreed for the said offer. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a letter bearing Lr.No.89A/KDA-II/92 dated 02.03.2010 asking the petitioner to show cause the reasons for not complying with the office letter of the 1st respondent dated 12.09.2009 within fifteen days. Immediately, the petitioner submitted its explanation on 23.03.2010 stating that it is not agreeable for the onerous conditions imposed in the said letter. … As of now, the position is as follows. All the petitioners were allotted small extents of industrial plots in Kakinada Industrial Park of APIIC. The allotment is subject to conditions of payment and also importantly commencing the small-scale unit within a period of two years. Admittedly even after 18 years, the petitioners are not even commenced the construction. Therefore, the allotment has already been cancelled by APIIC. However, on a request made by the petitioners, the CMD of APIIC considered the matter and offered to the petitioners 50% of the land at the allotted rate and balance 50% of land at Rs.4,000/- per square metre. When the matters are at that stage, it would not be proper to express any opinion on the issue involved in the case, although the counsel for APIIC strongly relies on Indu Kakkar v Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd
[1], which according to the counsel covers the issue. It would be better, if the petitioners are given one more opportunity to approach APIIC with regard to the rate payable by them and other formalities. Needless to mention that if the petitioners are allowed to retain the industrial plots allotted in 1992, they shall commence small-scale industrial units at least now within the time granted by APIIC. To enable the parties to negotiate, four weeks time is granted within which the petitioners shall approach APIIC through the Zonal Manager. The Advocates fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each case.
The Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(V.V.S. RAO, J) 29.06.2010
KH
[1] AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 296