vlff'A ''^y /^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, W.P. No. 2701 of 2006 M/s Jai Durga Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others ORDER PostJOLQi-dfic25/Q3Z2Qlfl- Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.No.2701 of 2006 M/s. Jai Durga Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Shiv Kumar Agrawal, aged about 42 years, S/o. Shri Jagannath Agrawal, R/o. Gali No. L-5, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Develbpment Corporation Ltd., LIC Campus, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Tifra, Bilaspur(C.G.) 4. M/s. Hanumant Industries, Sultania House, Near Gayatri Campus, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Inida) Appearance: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.l/State. Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate for respondents 2 & 3. Mr. Shaif Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate forrespondent No.4. .^1^%: //y^ ^ f'1. '^S'^ft3-3'' "^ %>. •ss-f'.f' W.P. No. 2701 of2006 ORDER (2.3.03.2010) Following order of the Court was delivered Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. by (1) The petitioner is an industry engaged in manufacture of vegetable oils and fats through solvent extraction process. The petitioner's existing unit is situated at plot No. 118-A, Sector- B, Sirgitti, Industrial Area, Bilaspur. The said plot has an area of 1,92,500 Sq. Ft. It was allotted to the petitioner and a lease-deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of an adjacent plot bearing No. 118-B on 3.6.2005 for expansion of its unit. Respondent No.4 with an intention to start a Small Scale Industry also applied for allotment of plot No. 118-B and on due consideration a letter of intent was issued to respondent No.4 on 23.5.2006. (2) Initially the production capacity of the petitioner was 30,000 MT. The petitioner planned to increase its production capacity from 30,000 MT to 45,000 MT, therefore, the said application for allotment of the adjacent plot was made. (3) Since the concerned respondent did not pass any order on the application dated 3.6.2005 filed by the petitioner for allotment of the adjacent plot and a letter of intent dated 23.5.2006 for allotment of the said plot to respondent No.4 was issued, the petitioner had filed this writ petition for the following relief(s):- "7. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: It is, kindly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. K-.^'V-S ^Ss^ s».fe W.P.No.2701 of 2006 7.2 That, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus for directinc the respondent No.1 to 3 to allot the piece of land and execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner which is situated at Sector B on land no. 118/B. The petitioner further prays that the suitable writ may kindly be issued to the respondent no. 1 to 3 restraining them not to allot the aforesaid piece of land to the respondent no.4. 7.3 That, the petitioner further prays to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 to cancel the letter of intent that has been issued in favour of the respondent no.4. 7.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may thing fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner." (4) This Court while entertaining the writ petition of the petitioner, passed an interim order dated 5.6.2006 and directed that the status quo in regard to the land bearing No. 118-B, admeasuring about 87,500 Sq. Ft. as obtained on the said date, shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing. Later on, this interim order dated 5.6.2006 was made absolute on 14.2.2007. (5) After filing of the returns in writ petition by the respective respondents, respondent No.4 filed I.A. No. 3/2009 on 12.8.2009 for abandonment of its claim over plot No. 118-B, Sector B, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Bilaspur. The prayer made by respondent No.4 in I.A. No. 3/2009 reads as under:- "PRAYER It is, respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the applicant may kindly be allowed to abandon its claim over the piece of land situated at land no. 118-B, Sector-B of Sirgitti Industrial Area, Bilaspur and further the relief sought by the petitioner in para 7.2 ofthe instant petition may be granted in the larger interest ofjustice." W.P.No.2701 of 2006 (6) Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the allotment of plot by the respondents are done. in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Industries (Allotment of Shed, Plot & Lands) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to the 'Rules 1974'); these Rules contain the provisions about allotment for expansion of the units; therefore, if an application was filed by the petitioner, that ought to have been decided by the respondents by passing an order on merits. It is more so, because there is a provisions of appeal in the Rules itself. (7) On the other hand, Mr. Ayaz Naved, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 & 3, argued about the policy contained in the said Rules 1974 and opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. (8) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. (9) Admittedly the allotments for beginning a fresh unit and for expansion of the existing units are governed by the provisions of the Rules 1974 (Annexure-P/7). Mr. Ayaz Naved has contended that according to these Rules the priority in allotment of plot to the existing unit for its expansion is to be given to the unit which has commehced and has gone into production and not one, which is under the process of establishment or erection. He submitted that the petitioner during the process of construction and erection of the unit had planned to increase the production capacity from 30,000 MT to 45,000 MT and applied to jespondent No.3 for allotment of adjacent plot No. 118-B, therefore, such -(' W.P. No. 2701 of2006 allotment in view of the above Rules, was not possible. He submitted that the unit ofthe petitioner got into production on 16.3.2006. (10) On the above arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3, it appears that the hurdle in consideration of the application of the petitioner dated 3.6.2Q05 was that the petitioner's unit has not gone into production on the said date and further that a letter of intent was already issued in favour of respondent No.4 on 23.5.2006. But, now the scenario has entirely changed. Now respondent No.4 has completely abandoned its claim on plot No. 118-B and has clearly stated that the relief(s) sought by the petitioner relating to allotment of the said plot to the petitioner may be granted. Meaning thereby, the only hurdle in way of the petitioner for consideration of its application claiming allotment of the adjacent land in its favour for expansion of its unit, according to respondents 2 & 3, would be that it had not claimed the allotment after commencing of its production as the allotment was claimed by an application dated 3.6.2005, whereas, the unit of the petitioner has gone into production on 16.3.2006. (11) Be that as it may, the present scenario is that the plot is vacant and the claim of respondent No.4 on the said plot has been abandoned by it and the petitioner is interested inclaiming the allotment of the said plot. Therefore, in the changed scenario as also looking to the objection raised by respondents 2 & 3, 1 deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition in the following terms:- (i) Let the petitioner move a fresh application for allotment of plot No. 118-B, Sector B, Sirgitti Indus.trial Area Bilaspur W.P. No. 2701 of2006 along with all other formalities within one month from today before the concerned authorities of respondents 1to 3. (ii) If such an application is moved by the petitioner, respondents, particularly respondents 2 & 3, shall examine the same in light of the provisions of Rule 5 & Rule 8 of the Rules 1974 and shall take a decision in accordance with Law. (iii) It is also directed that no further MOU shall be issued to any interested party prior to the decision on the application made by the petitioner in this regard. (iv) Though the Court is not fixing any time frame for disposal of the application if so filed by the petitioner, but looking to the fact that the earlier application for allotment was filed on 3.6.2005 and the writ petition was filed on 30.5.2006 and status quo was maintained by the interim order passed by this Court, we trust that the application of the petitioner shall be disposed of at the earliest by the concerned respondents. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and observations made in the order are only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The claim of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the concerned respondents in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made (supra) by this Court. (vi) The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated. (12) There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd;- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge vatti