Point of Law: A bare perusal of the scheme of SEZ Act, 2005 would indicate that this is an overriding special law to promote exports and to create specially carved out Economic Zones within the country, which can be developed by Developer as defined in the Act and who may be either Central Government, State Government or even a private party having land available with it. Section 53 of the Act provides that the SEZ area will be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for the purpose of undertaking the authorised operations and such SEZ Area will be deemed to be Ports, Airports, Inland Container Depots, Land Stations, etc. in certain cases.

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), (a Government of India Undertaking) against the Development Commissioner, APSEZ and the Private Respondent, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL), aggrieved by the Order of learned Single Judge dated 10.1.2017 in Special Civil Application No.184 of 2017 filed by CWC challenging the communication dated 5.1.2017 of the Private Respondent, APSEZL addressed to the Appellant – CWC. Since the learned Single Judge did not grant any Interim Relief to the Appellant – CWC, hence the present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by CWC, on 11.1.2017.

2. The present Appeal was filed by the Appellant in this Court on 11.1.2017 and on 11.1.2017 itself a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an Interim Order in favour of the Appellant- CWC permitting the Appellant-Corporation to carry on its business activity of the storing and transportation of the commodities in and from the Warehouse situated within the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developed by Private Respondent No.2 - GAPL (APSEZL). The said Interim Order was extended from time to time.

3. On 12.1.2021, the learned Counsels submitted before the Court that the parties are trying to settle the dispute out of Court and to finalise the same, some time may be granted. Accordingly, time prayed for was allowed and the hearing was adjourned. On 28.1.2021, this Court passed a detailed order impressing upon the parties to not to delay the settlement process or else the matter may be argued on merits. The said Interim Order dated 28.1.2021 is quoted herein below:

“1. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge has only issued Notice in Special Civil Application No.184 of 2017 filed by the appellant – Central Warehousing Corporation and did not grant any interim relief to the appellant – Central Warehousing Corporation.

2. The controversy in brief is that a plot of land was originally allotted to the appellant – Central Warehousing Corporation, which land was included in the area of land allotted to respondent No.2 as a Special Economic Zone to be developed by them. A dispute arose on that and therefore, the petition appears to have been filed by the appellant – Central Warehousing Corporation.

3. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.01.2017 passed an interim order noticing the day-to-day difficulties for the warehouses of the appellant – Central Warehousing Corporation and permitted them to carry on their storing activities in the Special Economic Zone area. Again on 26.04.2019, upon the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the said interim order was continued. Both the orders are quoted below for ready reference;

Order dated 11.01.2017 :

“1. NOTICE returnable on 23rd January 2017.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 184 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge has not granted interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ-petition.

3. In the writ-petition filed by the appellant herein, challenge is to the validity of communication dated 5.1.2017 issued by the Chief Operating Officer of the 2nd respondent. By the aforesaid communication, the 2nd respondent conveyed to the appellant- Corporation that it will not permit to continue the warehousing activity being carried out by the Corporation and further it will not issue gate passes for transportation and storage of food grains to and from the warehouse. In the communication sent by the 2nd respondent, reference is made to Rule 11(5) and Rule 11(7) of the SEZ Rules. It is the case of the appellant that extent of 34 acres of land was leased by 2n