Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Uttam Distilleries Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16985 of 2010
Decided on : 29-03-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226(3) - Industrial land - Allotment - Application of petitioner for allotment of industrial land for setting up the Plant, respondent vide letter of allotment dated (Annexure-3) allotted Plot No. 1, measuring approximately 70,000 square meters, at RIICO Industrial Area, for setting up the Plant - As per condition no. 3(a), balance 75% development charges was to be paid within 60 days - As per condition no. 4(b), construction activities were to be completed within a period of 2 years and production activities were to be started within a period of 3 years - Whether petitioner-company was prevented from abiding by terms of allotment letter and lease deed for reasons beyond its control - At outset, it is required to be noted that plot in question was allotted to petitioner-company at a concessional rate for a specific purpose under such terms and conditions as contained in allotment letter dated (Annexure-3) and lease deed dated. Para 20
Finding of Court :
It is also required to be noted that such a huge chunk of land in a fast growing industrial area is lying vacant since before 2004 - Inaction of petitioner-company has frustrated objective of policy under which land was originally allotted. Respondent-RIICO, despite its might, had utterly failed to protect State’s interest in the present case - Such inaction on part of respondent-RIICO, especially in commercial matters, adversely affects state exchequer - It is also noteworthy that respondent-RIICO, despite claiming possession of plot in question, have allowed encroachment on plot in question by unidentified strangers - In such circumstances, Court directs competent authority of respondent-RIICO to conduct appropriate inquires and issue charge sheets to Incharge Legal Officer as well as other officer(s) involved in the handling of this case - Appropriate internal mechanism may also be worked out so that such situations are not repeated in future and responsibility is also fixed.
Result : Present writ petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“A) Issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction to the RIICO to implement the decision of Cabinet and allowed the petitioner company to construct the distillery and Bottelling Plant, at plot no. SP-1, Sare-Khurdh, Bhiwadi District Alwar and commence its product.
B) Issue a writ of Certiorari in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Impugned Order-I dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure-28), Impugned Order-II dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-30), Impugned Order-III dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32) and Impugned Order-IV dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34) passed by the Respondent.
C) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
FACTS/BACKGROUND:
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case, as per the record, are as follows:
i. The petitioner-company applied for permission to establish a Distillery, Brewery and Bottling Plant at RIICO, Bhiwadi, Unit-II, District Alwar (hereafter to be referred as “the Plant”). In pursuance thereof, No Objection Certificate (in short “NOC”) (Annexure-2) was granted by the Office of Excise Commissioner on 05.07.2004 on such terms and conditions specified therein.
ii. Upon application of the petitioner for allotment of industrial land for setting up the Plant, the respondent vide letter of allotment dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-3) allotted Plot No. 1, measuring approximately 70,000 square meters, at RIICO Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Tehsil-Tijara, District Alwar (hereafter to be referred as “the plot”) for setting up the Plant. As per condition no. 3(a), balance 75% development charges was to be paid within 60 days. As per condition no. 4(b), construction activities were to be completed within a period of 2 years and production activities were to be started within a period of 3 years. As per condition no. 23, the allotment was liable to be cancelled automatically if the amount as stated in para 3(a) is not paid or if the construction/production is not started within the prescribed time or if there is any breach of any conditions mentioned in the allotment letter.
iii. The petitioner was handed over the possession of the plot on 10.09.2004 (Annexure-4).
iv. Vide letter no. U/(5)II/3298 dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was allowed to deposit the balance 75% of development charges along with applicable interest in seven quarterly installments.
v. The lease deed was executed on 29.10.2004 (Annexure-6). The lease deed specified that the petitioner-company was required to commence commercial production within a period of five years.
vi. Vide letter dated 10.03.2007 (Annexure-14), petitioner-company sought extension of time for construction till 2009 and commencement of production by 2010 averring that the area was semi-developed and since the respondent failed to construct the approach road in time, construction was delayed.
vii. Show cause notice (in short “SCN”) dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-16) issued to the petitioner by the respondent alleging non-compliance of condition no. 3(a), 2(d) etc. of the allotment letter/lease deed.
viii. The petitioner-company replied to the SCN vide letter dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure-17)
ix. The respondent issued a letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18) asking the petitioner-company to submit the time frame within which the construction was going to be completed and also directed petitioner-company to deposit the last installment of Development Charges along with interest (amounting to approximately Rs. 17.58 lakhs) by 31.07.2008.
x. The petitioner-company sent another letter to the respondents on 31.10.2008 reiterating that construction could not be completed due to lack of approach road and pendency of PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
xi. As the PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) pe
Point of Law : In case of failure to handover the possession in time, the plot shall be deemed to have been taken into possession by the Corporation and amount shall be refunded as per rules of the c....
The withdrawal of an allotment must be justified, and reasons for administrative decisions must be valid and consistent. Natural justice principles must be upheld in administrative actions.
The court held that administrative authorities must act within legal bounds, and their inaction in issuing NOC and executing Sale Deed was arbitrary, necessitating compliance with conditions for reli....
A contracting party is bound to fulfill the conditions set forth in a lease agreement; failure to do so legitimizes cancellation of the contract by authorities, despite claims of external difficultie....
Resumption of industrial plot for non-fulfilment of terms and conditions of allotment is justified.
The court affirmed that a party cannot use writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations, which must instead be pursued through appropriate civil or arbitration channels.
The court emphasized that passing of an order of cancellation of allotment was not mandatory on violation of the conditions of allotment letters, and that the petitioner's substantial compliance with....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
