IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance with contractual obligations and lack of activities on the allotted plots justified the termination of the Agreements by MIDC.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has raised a challenge to the notices dated 25th June 2014 issued by the 2nd respondent – Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), thereby terminating the Lease Agreements dated 5th August 1992 that were entered into between the parties. The petitioner has also raised a challenge to the orders dated 31st July 2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ratnagiri in proceedings under Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (for short, “Act of 1955”), by which the stay applications preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected in proceedings filed for challenging the notices dated 25th June 2014.

3. The facts in brief that are relevant for considering the challenge as raised are that the petitioner claims that it is engaged in the business of exploring, extracting as well as processing minerals, oil and gas. With a view to set up a Copper Smelter Project in the industrial area at Ratnagiri, it approached the MIDC in the year 1992. Pursuant to an application made by it, the MIDC allotted two plots on license to the petitioner for a period of three years. An industrial plot bearing no.Y-1, admeasuring 889.579 acres and a residential plot bearing no.R-57, approximately 395.368 acres, located at Zadgaon / Shirgaon in Ratnagiri District came to be allotted to the petitioner. On the basis of two separate Agreements dated 5th August 1992, the petitioner was permitted to undertake its activities therein. The grant of license was for a period of three years during which period the petitioner was required to submit its plans of construction for approval. The construction work was to be completed in thirty-six months. On certification by the Executive Engineer of MIDC, a further lease for ninety-five years at a yearly rent of rupee one was to be granted. Possession of both these plots came to be delivered on 20th August 1992. The license was subject to various terms and conditions, reference to which would be made at a later stage. It is the case of the petitioner that it took all necessary steps of seeking statutory permissions and approvals for setting up its Copper Smelter Plant. It invested approximately an amount of Rs.80 crores to Rs.100 crores at the initial stage for setting up the said plant. The petitioner was granted sanction by a letter dated 11th February 1993 after which preliminary work was initiated at the site. When these activities were underway, the petitioner received a communication from the office of the District Collector, Ratnagiri dated 10th July 1993 in which it was stated that Grampanchayat, Shirgaon had refused to grant permission for construction to the petitioner. It was further stated that against the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, the petitioner had approached the Zilla Parishad, but the Zilla Parishad had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner was called upon to comply with the said orders. Thereafter, on 15th July 1993, the District Collector informed the petitioner that in view of the agitation made by local residents which had given rise to a law and order situation, it was directed on the instructions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 13th July 1993 that until further orders, the petitioner should not undertake any construction. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner contends that its work came to a standstill.

4. On 27th January 2010, the Regional Officer, MIDC issued a communication to the petitioner stating therein that despite license having been granted on 5th August 1992 and a period of 18 years having elapsed, no work had been undertaken at the said plots and the same were lying vacant. The petitioner was asked to clarify within a period of ten d