1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 453 OF 2009 Silver Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ... Petitioners Versus The Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Others ... Respondents Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr. R. Ashokan and Mr. B..R. Vishwakarma for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Mr.H.K. Vardhan for R. Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. J;.S. Saluja for R. No. 3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. Rule. The Government of India framed a scheme known as “Industrial Park 2002” which was notified on April 01, 2002. The Petitioner applied under the said scheme. On 24.7.2006, the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry with reference to the Petitioner’s application dated 27.12.2005 conveyed approval of the Government of India for the proposal for setting up Industrial park in terms of the Industrial Park 2002. Para 5 discloses that the attention of the Petitioner was invited to Para 9 of the Industrial Park 2002. By their letter dated 28.10.,2006 the Petitioners 2 addressed communication to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry that they were submitting revised application form. By letter dated 25.7.2007 the Petitioners informed the concerned ministry of Government of India that the construction work for the I.T. Park was practically completed on February, 2007. It was further informed that the application was submitted on 28.3.2007 for grant of occupation certificate and the same was granted on 2.6.2007. It was also informed that in the meantime formal possession had been handed over. By letter dated 3.8.2007 the Section Officer in the concerned ministry sought certain information from the Petitioners herein. Further correspondence was exchanged between the Petitioner and concerned department by letter dated 21.9.2000. By communication dated 4.12.2007 the Petitioners were informed that their proposal for the Industrial Park 2002 will be placed before the Empowered committee and progress of the said industrial park will be discussed in the said meeting. Subsequently on 6.1.2009 the Petitioner was informed that they had submitted three applications to the department which are set out in terms (a), (b) and (c). It was also informed that the application was addressed and approval letter was issued on 25.7.2006. In Para 3 it is then set out that it did not find the case eligible under the industrial park scheme 2002 and hence, did not approve the same. It was pointed out that the Industrial Park scheme 2002 is applicable to industrial park set up between 1.4.1997 and 31.3.2006. It was also mentioned that the expected/actual date of commencement of industrial park is mentioned in the application at (c) of the communication was after 31.3.2006. The application did not cover the industrial park scheme 2002 and accordingly application was returned. It is this communication which is subject matter of the challenge before this court. 3 A reply has been field before this court. Arguments have been advanced by both the parties. On behalf of the Petitioner their learned counsel submits that considering Clause 7 (3) of the scheme for Industrial Park scheme 2002 as referred to earlier the committee had to consider each case on merits and in the event it chose to reject the application, ought to have offered an opportunity of being heard by the committee. In the instant case, it is set out that this opportunity had been denied to the Petitioner herein. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is sought to be set out that the Petitioners was not eligible for being considered under the policy of 2002. The issue whether the Petitioner is eligible or not, would not be for us to decide in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is for the empowered committee which has final say in the matter subject to superintendence by this court in respect of the decision that they may take. Suffice it to say that considering the scheme itself, the Petitioners ought to have been offered an opportunity of being heard before the application was rejected and more so considering their contention that they were entitled in the said scheme. In the light of the above the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 is set aside. The matter is referred back to the Empowered committee to hear the Petitioners and 4 including any submissions that they may file and after considering the same to pass appropriate orders according to law. The entire exercise to be completed within three months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)