^ CF0000165895 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3271/2006 PETITIONER Vandna Energy and Steels (P) Ltd. having its Corporate office at Vandna House, Ram Kund G.E. Road, Raipur through authorized Signatory Mr. Deepak Sharma, aged about 30 Years, S/o Shri M. C. Sharma, R/o Sharma Printers, Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) -Versus- RESPONDENT Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (C.S.I.D.C.) through its Managing Director, Life Insurance Company Building Pandri, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. 1 mGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE IJU. QUDDU8I & HON'BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ WRIT PETITION No.3271 OF 2006 Vs. APPEARANCE: Mr. Zafar Naiyar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.K. Munshi, Mohit Dewan, Saif Khan counsel for the Petitioner(s). Mr. P.S. Koshy wifh Kashif Shakeel, counsel for the respondent. WRIT io.7226 OF 2007 Vs. APPEARANCE: Mr. Zafar Naiyar, Sr. Advocate wifh Mr. V.K. Miuishi, Mohit Dewau, Saif Khau counsel for the Petitioner(s). Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. P.S. Koshy wifh Kashif Shakeel, counsel for fhe respondent no.4. WRIT PETITIOHS UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COH8TITUTION OF INDIA QRM.ORDER (02.08.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI 1. These are fhe two writ petitions filed by fhe same petitioner. In W.P.No.3271/2006 the petitioner has maialy prayed for the foUowiug relie^sj: iX pETI'nONBR Vandana Energy and Steels Private Liauted RB8PONDENT8 Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corpoiation Ltd (CSIDC)__ PETITXONBR Vandaoa Enei^y aud Steels Private Lunited KBSPpNDENTnB Vivek Agrawal and others WSS3SSSSSS 7.2 This HonTste Court inay kiadly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari for quashiag the orders dated 20.01.2006 (Aimexare P/24) & order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure P/29). 7.3 This HonTsle Court inay kiadly be pleased to issue writ of maadaaius directiag fhe respondent to aUot the aUotted land at SUtara Industrial Area, Raipxir. 7.4 This Honlale Coiirt may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing fhc respondent to aUot fhe laad with extension of tixne as inay be directed by this Hon'ble Court. 7.5 TIiis Hon'ble Court inay kindly be pleased to issue wnt of inandamus directing fhe refiind of forfeited amouat ofRs.5,52,000/- with iaterest. 2. In W.P.No.7326/2007 the main re]ief|[s) sought by the petitioner are as under: 7(A) A writ of and/or ia the nature of maadamus do issue comniandiag and directuig fhe respondent no. 1 to 4 hereia not to give any aad/or further effect to fhe impugned order Anaexure P/1 contaiaed in Memo No.67/SIPB/2007-08/983 dated 29.9.2007 aad/or to desist firom. taking any further steps pursuaat to fhe impugned order Annexure P-1. 7(B) A writ aad/ or in fhe nature of certioran do issue commanding aad directing ffae respondents 1 to 4 herein to produce before fhe Hon'bte Court fhe entire files aod records pertauung to the case on haad iacludiag i'nteraha aU iater-departniental and intra departinental con'espondence between different departmenls of the State Goveminent relatmg to ^ ^t^'^ '^ <<as^, I ^. _,?° ,- v;&::;'1 vanous effective steps taken by fhe petitioners under bofh the MOUs Annexure P/2 dated 8.9.2003 and Anaexure P/33 dated 04.06.2007 so that conscionable justice is done to the Petitioner by quashidg the impugned order Annexure P/l. 7(C) An appropriate writ/order/direction do issue by declaring fhat the provisions of Section 11 of the Chliattisgarh Audyogik Nivesh Adltiniyam, 2002 are ultra-viers the Constitution beiug violative of Article 14 ofthe Indiaa Coustitution. 3. Brief facts of fhe case are fhat a Letter of Intent (Lol) dated 01.08.2003 was tesued to the petitioner for aUotmeat ofland ineasuring 593145 sq.flt., beiag 13.61 acres in the iudustrial area for settmg up of spoiige iron, iategrated steel plant ete., subject to certaui terms and conditions inentioned thereia. Accordiag to condition no.2, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.67,72,575/- within 45 days fiom fhe date ofletter i.e. 01.8.2003 but for inega iudustries it was 90 days. Thc petitk>ner did not deposit the saine aad subsequenfly aa application was inade stating ttiat fhe Govenunent has provided coucession of 50%. However, a lettcr was abo given to fhe petitioner on 11.02.2004 by fhe Chliattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation caUiug upon fhe petitioner to execute the ^reeiuent with CSIDC regardiag 50% concession, but the petitioner has failed to deposit fhe remairuag 50% amiexiug Agreeinent, Barik Guarantee, Deinand Draft ia respcct of new policy of fhe State Govenuneut providing 50% concession. Since the petitioner has not yet coine forward to execute fhe same, iiltiinately the rv. ^•f^. ^ *. _.. -i:.. u' ,/" ^^ Letter of Intent dated 01.08.2003 issued m favour of fhe petitioner was caacelled vMe letter dated 20.01.2006. 4. In view of the above, it cannot be said fhat sufBcient time was not granted to the petitioner t6 execute the agreeinent and fm-nish fhe baxik guarautee etc., according to the new poU.cy. 5. Earlier the petitioner had moved representation aad the same was rcjected. However, we tfaink it appropriate if the inatter is reconsidered by the aufhorities conccmed as it was a niega project to be launched by fhe petitioner and ia fhe interest of general pubUc, it is desirable to decide the represcntation of fhe petitioner with reasoned order in case he inoves a freah representetion indicating detailed subnussions iu fhe said representation. Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions wifh a direction that iu case the petitioner nioves a representation with detaOed submissions alongwith a copy of thfa order, fhe same be disposed ofwithout takmg into consideration that lus earUer representation was rejected in the year 2006. We inay make it clear fhat we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case one way or the other. 6. At this stage, leamed couasel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount along-with iaterest according to fhe new poUcy of the State Govenuaeut dated 7th Feb. 2004. This fact niay also be considered wluk disposiug of fhe repicsentation. ^ ^-t^ ^i /y^^.. ^y---. ^, \^1 \^, •'.;.^';s^n^ -0 ""^ 7. With the above observations, fhese writ petitious stands finaUy disposed of. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- •M. Qudcfusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Kao