1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7025 OF 2008 Soujanya Color Private Limited .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri M. S. Topkar, for the Petitioner Shri P. V. Chavan i/by M/s Naveedep Vora and Associates for Respondents 2, 3 4, Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondents 1, 5 and 6 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 29th June, 2009 ORAL ORDER ( Per J. N. Patel, J.) 1. Head Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. As directed by this Court, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1, 5 and 6. 5. The petitioner is required to approach this Court for seeking writ so as to quash and set aside the order/direction dated 9th July, 2008 (Exh. M) and 7.7.2008 (Exh.O), directives dated 27.9.2006 and GR dated 30.10.2007 with further declaration that the petitioner should not be compelled to give undertaking to Respondent No. 3 MIDC and to obtain 2 NOC from Labour Department since such undertaking and NOC are not required for constructing and setting up its factory/establishment/office at Plot Nos. C- 35 to C-36 at MIDC, Pawane. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s Hico Products Limited which was a registered company had taken seven plots bearing Nos. C-30 to C-36 at MIDC, Pawane on lease from Respondent No.2, on 26.8.1974 for a period of 95 years. M/s Hico Products Ltd. constructed a factory shed on the said plots for its manufacturing activities i.e. Resins etc. For the purpose of its business, the said company borrowed certain sum of money from ICICI Bank and created a charge on all its properties by way of collateral surety in favour of ICICI Bank. As the said company could not repay the amount, ICICI Bank filed Original Suit No. 3406 of 1999 against the said company in this Court. In a Notice of Motion No. 2576 of 1999 in the said Suit, this Court appointed a Court receiver with power to take possession of the properties of M/s Hico Products Ltd. The Court Receiver took possession of all assets and properties of M/s Hico Products including the property i.e. Plot No. C-30 to C- 36 at MIDC, Pawane. The Court Receiver further invited bids for purchase of different lots of immovable property including the property bearing Plot Nos. C-30 to C- 36. After receiving bids, the same were placed before this Court and this Court, by its order dated 25.1.2006 in the said Suit, directed the Court Receiver to execute necessary conveyance in favour of Mr. Khanna and in 3 the name of nominees informed by him. On payment of the entire consideration of Rs.14.15 crores, the Court receiver executed a deed of assignment in favour of the petitioner on 28.9.2006 in respect of two plots i.e. Plot Nos. C-35 and C-36, which came to be registered with the Sub- Registrar on 19.1.2007. The possession was handed over to the petitioner free from all encumbrances. 7. M/s Hico Products Ltd. took up the chamber summons for setting aside the order confirming sale of plots Nos. C-30 to C-36. However, by oder dated 29.1.2007, this Court held that the sale by auction was valid and dismissed the Chamber Summons. 8. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 for transfer of lease right in the plots Nos. C-35 and C-36 in view of the aforementioned deed of assignment. By order dated 22.3.2007, the Area Manager, MIDC, Mahape, granted his consent for transfer and assignment of lessee s interest ’ of lease in respect of Pot Nos. C-35- to C-36 in favour of the petitioner for setting up a plant for paints and surface coating. Subsequently, on 23.10.2007, the petitioner applied to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for granting NOC to establish industrial unit for manufacturing universal stainers, Machine colorants, water based coating color dispersions. 9. The petitioner took other clearance from the concerned statutory authorities and was in the process of commencing its industrial unit. But the same was intercepted by a Communication from the Deputy Engineer, MIDC, Mahape, Sub-Division-1, which by letter dated 4 24.3.2008 informed the petitioner that as per letter dated 17.11.2007, received from Respondent No.6- Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the petitioner is required to approach the said authority and obtain necessary NOC from the Labour Department. The said letter dated 17.11.2007 was issued by Respondent No.6 informing respondent No. 3 that M/s Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd. was carrying out construction work at the premises of M/s Hico Products Ltd. which has closed down the establishment without paying legal dues of its workers. Therefore, attention of the MIDC was invited to GR dated 27.9.2006 and insisted that the said Company should obtain NOC of Labour Department before carrying out any construction work. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the GR dated 27.9.2006 referred to by respondent No.6 is in fact a directive purported to be issued by respondent no.1 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and it is to the effect that all planning authorities in the state, before granting permission to the closed Company for development of their lands from industrial use to residential use, should obtain NOC from Labour Commissioner to the effect that legal dues of all the workers of the said Company have been fully paid. Pursuant to the said GR, the Industries, Energy and Labour Department of Respondent No.1, issued another GR dated 30.10.2007 on the same line. However, instead of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being aware that the directives dated 27.9.2006 and GR dated 30.10.2007 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, insisted upon the petitioner to obtain NOC from Respondent No.6. In this 5 back drop, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court for quashing of the GR dated 30.10.2007 and directives dated 27.9.2006 issued by the State Government, on the ground that it is not within the scope and object of the State government to issue such directives or GR and that the respondents cannot insist the company like the petitioner to give any undertaking and obtain NOC from the Labour Department in respect of the legal dues, if any, of workers of the closed companies whose properties are purchased by them through public auction by the court. 11. The matter was contested by the respondents by justifying the issuance of fresh GR in the last affidavit in reply which is tendered on behalf of Respondents 1, 5 and 6. The respondents have tried to explain the object and purpose of the directives and the GRs. 12. Learned AGP has informed us that a communication dated 26th June, 2009 has been received by the Government Pleader, Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay from the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai signed by the Section Officer, wherein, it is clarified that in the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking development permission on industrial plot for industrial purpose. Therefore, the directives issued by this department on 27th September, 2006 and 31st January, 2008 are not applicable in this case. The directive issued by this department is only applicable for the cases where the purpose of land is changed from industrial to residential/commercial. Therefore the contention of the 6 petitioner in this regard is accepted. 13. It appears that the issue raised in this petition has been resolved by this clarification which has been conveyed to the Government Pleader by the Urban Development Department by letter dated 26th June, 2009. The Learned AGP has tendered this letter in the Court, which is taken on record and marked X for identification. In the given facts and “ ” circumstances, we do not want to go into the validity or otherwise of the said directives and GR which are the subject matter of challenge in the petition, particularly when the State, on its own, have clarified and accepted that the said directives and GR are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 14. Learned Counsel Shri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the said directives, GRs and the corresponding communication received from the respondents deserve to be quashed and set aside. In our view, after this clarification received from the Urban Development Department, this question remains academic and we do not propose to examine it in this petition and it is left. 15. The Learned AGP, after seeking instruction from the Deputy Labour Secretary- Shri Sadashiv Kisan Kamble, stated that this Court may direct the petitioner to apply to the office of the Commissioner of Labour for getting NOC regarding payment of legal dues to the workers.. We fail to understand as to why the petitioner should again be pushed to get entangled in the vexatious process of obtaining NOC when it is not 7 required under the directives and GR issued by the Urban Development Department and the subsequent GR issued by the Industrial, Energy and Labour Department, which are the subject matter of challenge. As they are respondents in this petition and having taken a stand that directives and GR issued on 27th September, 2007 and 31st January, 2008 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, Vidyabalanthere is no reason why the MIDC should not permit the petitioner to proceed with further development and, therefore, the impugned notices dated 24.4.2008 (Exh.H) and 7th July, 2008 (Exh.O) are quashed and set aside. We make it clear that the Respondent- MIDC would not insist upon the petitioner for obtaining NOC from the Labour Department which Vidyabalanhas driven the petitioner to this Court to challenge the said directives and GR which have been misapplied in the case of the petitioner. 16. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, we dispose of this petition with no order as to costs. 17. Rule is made absolutely accordingly. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.)