Point of Law: Thus, it is primarily for the authority concerned issuing the offer-cum-allotment letter to decide as to what terms and conditions should be incorporated. If the State or its instrumentality acts contrary to public good or public interest or in an unfair, unjust or unreasonable manner while performing its contractual obligations arising out of non-statutory contracts, then such acts would be contrary to the Constitutional guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution and in a given case, if such guarantee is found to have been denied, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to undo the wrong done by the State/instrumentality and to command the State to pay its unpaid dues, which it is bound to pay under its contractual obligation but had refused to pay on an unfair, unjust or unreasonable ground.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appellant, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) has approached this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the order dated 12/16.08.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12391 of 2013, by which the learned single Judge directed the appellant Corporation to refund Rs. 1,75,37,460/- with 6% interest p.a. from 30.10.2012, i.e. the date when the Corporation for the first time offered refund, till its payment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and in failure to comply the order within the said period, the present respondent was held to be entitled to receive interest @ 8% from the aforesaid period till the amount was realized.

2. The appellant Corporation has challenged the impugned order on the grounds inter-alia contending that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its proper perspective and has committed an error in holding that owing to the mistake on the part of the appellant Corporation in not sending the offer-cum-allotment letter in the name of the new Company, the present respondent was unable to obtain financial assistance from banks in connection with its project. The appellant Corporation contends that the transaction is purely contractual in nature and involves disputed question of facts and that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the appellant Corporation could not deviate from its policy, as already established in the case of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited and Another vs. Shivani Engineering Industries.

2.1 The appellant Corporation has also raised an issue in the present appeal against the order of refund contending that the learned single Judge has travelled beyond the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. It is stated that the order of refund was already prepared in the year 2014 and it was because of the request of the respondent for revival of offer, the said refund order was never sent by the appellant Corporation. Thus, it contends that during the pendency of revival application, the grievance raised for non-refund was not justifiable, which ought not to have been granted by the learned Single Judge along with the interest.

3. Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation submitted that the decisions by the appellant Corporation are taken within the parameters of the policies, the officer concerned cannot make any deviation prejudicial to the interest of the appellant Corporation. Mr. Marshal, learned senior counsel referred to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.01.2011 entered at Gandhinagar during the Vibrant Gujarat Summit-2011 between Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited and the appellant Corporation, the Offer-cum-allotment orders dated 31.03.2011 and 11.01.2012 in respect of Plot No. D-2/E/212 and Plot No. D-II/E/338 respectively sent to M/s. Dhurv Pipeline Products Pvt. Ltd. to emphasize that the parties are under contractual obligation to the project proposed. Reliance was placed on the Circular dated 02.05.2012 to submit that in a case where the limit of offer-cum-allotment letter is required to be extended, such extension would be subject to the modification in the rates of allotment with simple interest.

4. Per contra, Mr. R.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the learned single Judge’s order, submits that the order impugned contains all the details of the transaction, communication made by both the parties and the development during the course of hearing. He submitted that there was no concluded contract. The appellant Corporation had sent offer-cum-allotment orders and it was on fulfillment of the conditions by the parties that there was to be a concluded contract. Learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the conduct of the appellant Corporation was arbitrary, unjust and against the terms and con