CW 10201/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10201/08 Sanghi Motors [Bombay] Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. DATE OF ORDER : 13/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. A.K. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Virendra Lodha, for respondent *** Matter has come up on application filed U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of interim order passed by this court dt.29th September, 2008. However, looking to the nature of controversy, this court considers it proper to dispose of petition finally at the stage of admission. Petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the order Ann.16 dt.1st August, 2008 whereby the respondent has demanded the charges regarding sub-letting premium for the period from 1st October, 1994 to 20th May, 2004 of Rs.31,07,710/- to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issuance of order impugned. As alleged by the petitioner, M/s. Sanghi Motors CW 10201/08 [2] [Bombay] Private Ltd. is running oxygen and acetylene manufacturing unit under the name & style of M/s. Kota Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. which is owned and controlled by the same management of the petitioner Company over the plot No. Spl.1, Chambal Industrial Area, Kota allotted to the petitioner Company by respondent by lease deed dt.24th May, 1973 and for sub-letting lease premise permission was to be obtained from the respondent on payment of rent of sub-letting premium. However, after depositing one month's rent for sub-letting premium it was later on represented to the respondent seeking exemption from depositing sub-letting premium and the respondent after taking note of their relevant rules/regulations or policy decision as the case may be, granted exemption to the petitioner Company from depositing sub-letting premium w.e.f. 1st October, 1994 to the date of issuance of order Ann.15 dt.20th May, 2004. However, after four years of passing of order granting exemption from charging sub-letting premium from petitioner Company unilaterally the respondent issued an order Ann.16 dt.1st August, 2008 whereby the permission granting exemption from sub-letting CW 10201/08 [3] premium from 1st October, 1994 to 20th May, 2004 was withdrawn and the petitioner Company was directed to deposit sub-letting premium for the aforesaid period within 30 days. One of the contention advanced by counsel for petitioner is that once the respondent has granted them exemption from charging sub-letting premium vide order Ann.15 dt.20th May, 2004 w.e.f. 1st October, 1994 revoking the said order and directing the petitioner to deposit sub-letting premium charges for the aforesaid period is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and on this count alone it is not legally sustainable. Counsel submits that very action of the respondent in passing order impugned on various counts is not legally sustainable. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and tried to justify that the later decision taken by the respondents by their order dt.1st August, 2008 is certainly as per their scheme/policy and earlier some error was CW 10201/08 [4] committed by the officer in granting them benefit vide order Ann.15 dt.20th May, 2004. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents that after exemption from charging sub-letting premium was granted to the petitioner Company vide order Ann.15 dt. 20.5.04. Later order was passed by the respondents Annex.16 dt.1st August, 2008 unilaterally without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and certainly once the exemption was granted from charging sub-letting premium by the respondents w.e.f. 1st October, 1994 vide order dt.20th May, 2004 certainly could not have been re-opened without due compliance of principles of natural justice and on this court alone, the order impugned is not legally sustainable. So far as further submission made by counsel for petitioner on merits is concerned, this court does not consider it proper to examine the same since opportunity will be afforded to him by the respondents before taking any action available under law. CW 10201/08 [5] Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order Ann.16 dt.1st August, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, respondents will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders after due compliance of principles of natural justice and it will be open for the petitioner to raise all legal objection available in his defence. It is also expected from the respondents after taking note of objection raised by the petitioner, the same may be decided by a reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA10201CW08 13-1.doc