SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(AP) 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Prana Pharmaceuticals Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24092 of 2020
Decided On: 29.12.2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :G. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:J. Ugranara Simha, Advocate

A WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNLESS IT IS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND.

Headnote:

APIIC INDUSTRIAL PARKS ALLOTMENT REGULATIONS, 2015 - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - APIIC/G.O.Ms.No.10, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (I.P.I) DEPARTMENT, DATED 04.02.2015 - COURT HELD THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION WAS NOT ISSUED WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND AND THE WRIT PETITION FILED AGAINST THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONER WAS ALLOTTED A PLOT OF LAND BY THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION FOR ESTABLISHING A MANUFACTURING PLANT FOR ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICAL INGREDIENTS/BULK DRUGS. THE PETITIONER, HOWEVER, FACED DIFFICULTIES IN ESTABLISHING THE PLANT DUE TO THE EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ITS NEIGHBOR, M/S. SUNDARAM ALLOYS LIMITED. THE PETITIONER REQUESTED THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE PLOT, BUT THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE PROPOSING TO CANCEL THE LEASE AND RESUME THE PLOT.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APIIC INDUSTRIAL PARKS ALLOTMENT REGULATIONS, 2015 AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS ISSUED WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE WRIT PETITION WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT WAS FILED AGAINST A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE.

Issues: 1. WHETHER THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND? 2. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE?

Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES IN REACHING ITS DECISION: 1. A WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNLESS IT IS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND. 2. THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH A PRE-DETERMINED MIND.

Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION.

ORDER :

M. Ganga Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Show-cause notice dated 04.12.2020 for cancellation and resumption of plot No. 14A to an extent of Ac. 10.00 cents or 40,470 Sq. mts. at APSEZ, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District allotted for setting up of Bulk Drugs and Drug Intermediates which was handed over through registered Lease deed dated 28.02.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of APIIC Industrial Parks Allotment Regulations, 2015 and consequently to restrain the 2nd respondent from taking any adverse action of cancellation and resumption of the plot and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the reply given to the show-cause notice for providing alternate plot in vacant plots in newly developed zones of petitioner's choice in Atchutapuram or Parwada Phase II on the same commercial terms and same price as applicable to the Plot No. 14A allotted to the petitioner and grant reasonable time for establishing the manufacturing plant for 'Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients/Bulk Drugs' in pursuance to the reply of the petitioner dated 09.12.2020.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it was allotted land to an extent of Ac. 10.00 cents in Plot No. 14 at Atchutapuram, APSEZ industrial park, on its application submitted in the year 2013. Later, the petitioner company was requested to choose Plot No. 14A or 15B to an extent of Ac. 10.00 each in the Chemicals sector instead of the original Plot No. 14 for the reason that the Plot No. 14 is covered by water body. Plot No. 2C also could not be considered as it falls under Petrochemical Zone. In continuation of the provisional allotment order and the modification letter dated 09.05.2014, final allotment of Plot No. 14A in Krishnampalem Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District admeasuring Ac. 10.00/40,470 Sq. mts. has been confirmed in favour of the petitioner company for having paid 25.05% as requested against 25% towards cost of the land. Further, the petitioner company was asked to make the payment of annual installment of Rs. 70,60,802/- within 30 days from the date of expiry of moratorium period of two years vide Final allotment order dated 09.10.2014 and a registered lease deed dated 28.02.2015 bearing Document No. 1411/2015 for a period of 33 years was executed by the respondent-Corporation for establishing a new manufacturing plant for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients/Bulk Drugs for products from therapeutic segments, namely, Ocology, Cardiovascular, Ophthalmic, Anti HIV and Anti Diabetic. The petitioner company took possession of the land on registration and requested for extension of time for implementation of the proposed project in order to avail the bank loan as the bankers have come forward to process the loan. At the request of the petitioner, the respondents have granted extension of time for implementation of the project up to 25.10.2019. In the month of February, 2019, the bankers visited the site to process the project loan and for valuation/hypothecation purpose. During the visit, the bankers were surprised to see huge amounts of pollutants generated from the petitioner's immediate neighbour M/s. Sundaram Alloys Limited, which is located in Plot Nos. 13 and 14AA manufacturing Ferro alloys. The bankers expressed doubt as to whether the petitioner was able to obtain the regulatory approvals of USFDA, EU GMP to smoothly run its business without any audit issues. Considering the serious concerns of the bankers, the petitioner sought a site audit by an independent quality auditor who has vast experience working in the pharmaceutical industry. In the month of March, 2019, the auditor visited the petitioner's site and upon studying the amount of pollution being generated by M/s. Sundaram Alloys Limited, concluded that M/s. Sundaram Alloys Limited is causing serious violation of pollution and it would damage the petitioner's proposed manufacturing plant and the petitioner company

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top