JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authority whereby the petitioner’s applications dated 21.12.2016 and 20.2.2017 came to be rejected by the respondent authority vide orders dated 24.1.2018 and 12.3.2018. Further, the petitioner has also challenged circular of 2016 issued by respondent to the extent that it does not give any right to the successor which according to the petitioner is in violation of its own circular of 2014.

2. The matter was heard extensively on various dates and ultimately on 29.9.2022 the matter was heard finally by this Court.

3. Heard Mr.R.D.Patadia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Pavan Godiawala, learned advocate for the respondent – Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short, `the Corporation’).

4. Today, by the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Pavan Godiawala, waives service of notice of rule for the respondent - Corporation.

5. Brief facts of the petition are that the petitioners are legal heirs of late Mr.Rajesh Rameshchandra Soparivala. The petition is filed by son of late Mr.Rajesh Rameshchandra Soparivala i.e. petitioner No.1 - Fenil Rejesh Soparivala in his personal capacity and by Nayanaben Soparivala and Jeniben Soparivala, who are wife and daughter of Mr.Rajesh Soparivala, respectively through their power of attorney holder Fenil Soparivala, who happens to be the son of Mr. Rajesh Soparivala.

5.1 That late Mr.Rajesh Soparivala was allotted a shed being Shed No.4304/4 of C-1 Type in GIDC Industrial Estate, Sachin on 9.2.1989 and father of the petitioner started carrying on his business in the name and style of Sai Textiles.

5.2 As father of the petitioner could not pay the dues of respondent Corporation vide order dated 27.2.1997 the father of the petitioner was evicted from the premise on account of nonpayment of dues.

5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that his deceased father incurred huge losses on account of ill-health and communal riots during that period, and therefore, ultimately the possession of the plot was taken over and thereafter father of the petitioner passed away on 28.1.1999.

5.4 In the year 2016 i.e. after 19 years, after evicting father of the petitioner from the property by the respondent corporation, the petitioner came to know that vide circular dated 28.1.2016 (referred to as notification in the petition), the respondent Corporation floated a policy for restoration of the possession and as per that policy any property was evicted and possession of which is taken over by the respondent for a period of more than 3 months, and if that eviction has taken place on the basis of recovery of dues or non-payment of the property, those properties would be eligible for restoration.

According to the policy, in case the property is surrendered on its own by the person occupying the property or if he has already received the refund, he shall not be considered to be entitled to avail the scheme. According to the policy, if there are any pending dues in any court of law in respect of the property, the pending case was required to be withdrawn and if the application of the allottee for restoration of the possession is rejected earlier, his application would not be considered for restoration of the possession under the scheme.

5.5 As per the policy, it was decided that before restoration of the possession of the property, the allottee is required to pay either all the dues of the GIDC or the existing rate of allotment prevailing in respect of the property whichever is higher and the allottee also is required to pay 10% higher amount than the rate of allotment which was existing on the date of notification.

5.6 Pursuant to the aforesaid policy, the petitioner also applied for restoration of possession of his shed and shown his willingness to abide by the terms of the circular dated