IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 Birla Power Solutions Ltd. ………….. Petitioner Versus The Secretary (TRU), Department of Revenue, Customs & Central Excise, North Block, New Delhi and others .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Addl. Solicitor General, Govt. of India Assisted by Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Mr. Arvind Vashisth and Mr. A.S. Bisht, Advocates for the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 21.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) (CLMA No.305 of 2006) Review application registered as CLMA No. 305 of 2006 seeks to review the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 31st October 2006, whereby and under, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 was disposed of by granting the writ petitioner an extension of time of one year to get machines and thereafter to convert the industry with substantial expansion of 30%. In the review petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that since the policy, of which advantage was being sought for in the writ petition, did not provide any mechanism for extension of time, the order under review was beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner does not seriously object to the review petition and submitted that the writ petitioner has taken other substantial grounds 2 in the writ petition and, accordingly, it would be appropriate to hear and decide the writ petition. In such view of the matter, we allow the review petition and recall the order dated 31st October, 2006 passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 shall be heard afresh. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 In this writ petition, the petitioner, an existing industrial unit, situated at Doiwala in the District of Dehradun, State of Uttarakhand is seeking to take advantage of the policy of the Government of India contained in office memorandum dated 7th January, 2003. It has been contended that in the said office memorandum, it had been specifically mentioned that any industrial estate situated at Doiwala, Dehradun in the State of Uttarakhand shall be entitled to the benefits of the said policy. It is being contended that subsequent thereto the Central Government, on 10th June 2003, published Notification No. 50/2003-Central Excise and thereby mistakenly purported to delete industrial estates situated at Doiwala, Dehradun. It was contended that these kind of mistakes were noticed and, accordingly, the State Government published an advertisement on 6th August 2004, inviting people to highlight mistakes, if any, committed. It was contended that similar mistakes had been committed and, accordingly, many a writ petitions were filed and those were disposed of by directing making of representations and ultimately on 19th May, 2005, the Central Government amended the Notification dated 10th June, 2003 and thereby brought in two Schedules, one containing the particulars of the industrial estates, where existing as well as new industries were shown to be entitled to the benefits of the said policy and the other containing industrial estates, where new industrial units were shown to be entitled to the benefits of the said policy. It was contended that the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, has been included 3 in Annexure III to the amended Notification, but inclusion of the petitioner’s industry in the said annexure was a mistake and, accordingly, the same is required to be corrected. Even assuming that what petitioner contends is correct and a pronouncement to that effect is made and as a result, the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, is shifted to Annexure II, the petitioner would not get any relief, inasmuch as, being an existing industry the petitioner was required to expand and thereupon to commence production by 31st March 2010, which the petitioner has not done. In these circumstances, there is nothing to be done in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 21.12.2010 P. Singh