1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5119/2000 Padam Chand Jain Versus Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited DATE OF ORDER --- May 13,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. N.K.Maloo, for the petitioner Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, for the respondent BY THE COURT (1) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter/order dated 25.9.2000 (Anx.17) whereby his representation dated 21.8.2000 against the demand of Rs.1,74,898/- raised vide order dated 23.6.2000 (Anx.13), has been rejected on the ground that the Standing Order No.93 dated 12.9.1998 regarding grant of rebate at the rate of 20% in respect of the development charges, is applicable only to the new industrial units to be developed by the respondent Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (in short `the Corporation') whereas the area in question i.e. Matsya Industrial Area (Extension) had already come into existence in the year 1996-97 and therefore, it could not be taken to be a new industrial area. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for allotment of industrial plot measuring about 4,000 Sq.M. in the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar for establishment of Marble Gangsaw unit vide his letter dated 24.12.1998. The allotment of land was made to the petitioner on 29.12.1998 and the development charges at the rate of Rs.150/- per Sq.M. were mentioned. It is further stated in the writ petition that 20% 2 rebate on Rs.150/- per Sq.M. was not granted to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.8.2000 and ultimately, the impugned orders dated 23.6.2000 and 25.9.2000 were passed. (3) The respondent Corporation has filed reply to the writ petition and stated therein that the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar came into existence on 11.6.1996 and the Infrastructure Development Committee of the Board of Directors vide its resolution No.12 in the meeting held on 28.5.1996 accorded approval for fixing the rate of development charges in respect of the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar at Rs.200/- per Sq.M. Consequently, an order dated 11.6.1996 (Anx.14) was issued after revising the rate of development charges of Rs.250/- per Sq.M. Subsequently, vide Item No.9 of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 5.9.1998, approval for allowing rebate of 15% in the prevailing rate was issued and the rebate was available uptil 31.12.1998 and the prevailing rate of Rs.200/- per Sq.M. was revised to Rs.150/- Sq.M. It is further stated in the reply that as on 30.6.2000, the total amount outstanding against the petitioner was Rs.2,01,976/-. (4) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar was undeveloped, therefore, there was no justification for the respondent Corporation for not treating the same as new industrial area which came into force after 31.12.1998 and further in not granting benefit to the petitioner, of resolution on the Agenda Item No.2 dated 5.9.1998 of the Infrastructure Development Committee of the Board of Directors according to which rebate in the development charges in respect of 20% saleable plot was to be given and the said 20% rebate was applicable on the rate of Rs.150/- per Sq.M. (5) Alternative submission of Mr.Maloo is that the petitioner was bona fide litigating under the impression that on un-developed area, the Resolution No.2 dated 5.9.1998 is applicable and further, this Court had granted interim order 3 on 1.12.2000 which is still in force. Therefore, the interest amount at least during the pendency of the writ petition may be ordered to be waived. (6) This Court on 22.4.2010, granted time to Mr.Bhandari, counsel for the respondent Corporation to place on record the implementation of approval dated 5.9.1998, in response to which he has filed an additional affidavit dated 11.5.2010 and has also placed on record Resolution with regard to Agenda Item No.2 (Anx.R-6) whereby it has been resolved that similar rebate of 20% in case of first 20% of the area may be allowed as a policy in all new industrial areas in future. (7) Submission of Mr.Bhandari is that the petitioner could not be granted benefit of the rebate as per the aforesaid Resolution dated 5.9.1998 because the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar had already come into existence on 11.6.1996, therefore, Resolution No.2 is not applicable. (8) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of counsel for the parties. (9) Before proceeding further, I would like to quote Resolution with regard to Agenda Item No.2 (Anx.R-6) which is as follows: Item No.2 Revision in the rate of development charges in respect of Growth Centre, Abu Road (II) Phase. The Committee discussed the position as brought out in the agenda note and approved the proposal contained therein. The Committee also desired that a similar rebate for the first 20-25% of the land area, in case of all new industrial areas may be allowed in future. The following Resolutions were adopted: RESOLUTIONS: “RESOLVED that approval be and is hereby accorded for revision in the rate of development charges in respect of Growth Centre, Phase-II from Rs.200/- to Rs.150/- per sqm for allotment of first 20% of the area after which remaining land will be allotted at the rate of Rs.200/- per sqm. 4 FURTHER RESOLVED that a similar rebate of 20% in case of first 20% of the area may be allowed as a policy in all new industrial areas in future.” (emphasis supplied) (10) In my view, the aforesaid Resolution (Anx.R-6) with regard to Agenda Item No.2 is applicable to the new industrial units and not to the industrial area which came into existence prior to 5.9.1998. Since the Matsya Industrial Area (Extension), Alwar came into existence on 11.6.1996, therefore, the Resolution No.2 dated 5.9.1998 is not applicable to the petitioner. However, as regards the interest, in my view, the dispute raised by the petitioner appears to be bona fide and the same is required to be considered. (11) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.2,01,976/- due as on 30.6.2001 within a period of one month from today, then further interest will be charged at the rate of 12% per annum, for which fresh demand notice be issued and further time of one month is granted for depositing such amount of interest. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल