Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 1947
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
M/s. Medical Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. & others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1909 of 2015.
Decided On : 18-11-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sudesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vyankatesh Garg, Advocate.
A defaulter cannot invoke equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to claim that he may be treated in the same manner as another defaulter has been treated.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 - Rule 24(3) - Restoration of allotment of cancelled plot - Conditions - Possession of cancelled plot - Commencement of production - Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.', 'SUBJECT': 'Restoration of Allotment of Cancelled Plot - Conditions - Possession of Cancelled Plot - Commencement of Production - Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 - Rule 24(3)']}
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was allotted a plot in 1987 to set up an industrial unit. However, the petitioner failed to commence construction within the stipulated time and the allotment was cancelled in 1995. The cancellation was later withdrawn on the petitioner's assurance that construction would commence. However, even after the execution of the lease deed in 1996, the petitioner failed to commence construction and the allotment was again cancelled in 2006. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order before the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to restoration of the allotment under Rule 24(3) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, as the petitioner had not commenced production on the plot. The Court also held that the petitioner could not invoke equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to claim that it should be treated in the same manner as other allottees who had been granted the benefit of Rule 24(3), as the petitioner's case was on a different footing.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the allotment under Rule 24(3) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979? 2. Whether the petitioner could invoke equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to claim that it should be treated in the same manner as other allottees who had been granted the benefit of Rule 24(3)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 24(3) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, provides that restoration of allotment of a cancelled plot can be considered by the Corporation depending upon the merit of each case, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, including possession of the cancelled plot and commencement of production. 2. In the present case, the petitioner had not commenced production on the plot, and therefore, was not entitled to restoration of the allotment under Rule 24(3). 3. Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by a defaulter to claim that he may be treated in the same manner as another defaulter has been treated.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
“Rule 24(3)- Policy of Restoration of allotment of cancelled plot.
1. Restoration of allotment of cancelled plot can be considered by the Corporation depending upon the merit of each case, subject to fulfilment of the following criteria/conditions:-
i. Possession of the cancelled plot is lying with the party (applicant), and/or;
ii. Possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation, and refundable amount consequent upon cancellation of allotment of plot is not paid, and/or;
iii. Possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation and cheque of refundable amount sent to the party but not en-cashed by the lessee/purchaser, and/or;
iv. Possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation and no amount is payable to the lesse
