RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Indrajit Mahanty, CJ., Satish Kumar Sharma, J.
Arfat Petrochemicals Private Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3410/2020
Decided On : 20-07-2021
JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Sharma, J.:--
REPORTABLE
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the scope of authority of the State Government over the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) under Article 138 of its Articles of Association and seeking directions to quash and set aside the decision dated 03.08.2019 of the Cabinet Committee of the State Government which was constituted to review the decisions taken by the previous Government in the last six months, and consequential orders issued pursuant thereto, whereby the permissions/approvals granted to the petitioner- company by the RIICO have been cancelled.
2. On perusal of the pleadings and material made available on record, the relevant factual position has emerged out that a total 271.39 acres of land was allotted to J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (JKSL) in Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota for setting up of industries. JKSL was declared as "sick" vide order dated 02.04.1998 passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Delhi. The Appellate Authority of BIFR (AAIFR) vide its order dated 23.01.2003 sanctioned its rehabilitation scheme of JKSL and in terms thereof, 227.15 acres of land of JKSL was transferred to the petitioner-company, the scheme of JKSL had run it's course and accordingly, lease deeds were executed/renewed by the District Collector, Kota in favour of the petitioner-company.
3. The petitioner-company made the Acrylic Fibre unit operational but due to a devastating fire in the year 2007, the same was closed. In the rehabilitation scheme, a tripartite agreement was executed between JKSL, the petitioner-company and the workers unions regarding the due payment to the labourers. Liability of payment to labourers of JKSL was computed to 40.42 crores of rupees, against which 34.06 crores of rupees were paid by the petitioner-company and rest of the amount could not be paid as the whereabouts of the concerned labourers could not be known. The litigation for non revival of Kota units and regarding payment of dues to labourers attained finality with the dismissal of petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.08.2017 and 06.03.2018.
The petitioner-company made an application before the District Collector, Kota for clearance to develop affordable housing scheme on the lease land under Chief Minister Jan Aavas Yojana (CMJAY) scheme. Correspondence in this regard was also made between the District Collector and RIICO but it could not get the desired clearance.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner-company on 28.08.2018, 11.09.2018, 12.09.2018 and finally on 27.09.2018 submitted proposals for sub-division and change of land use of the subject land for commercial and institutional use from industrial use in a phased manner under RIICO Disposal of Land Rules , 1979 (Rules of 1979). The proposals of the petitioner-company was accepted by the Land Planning Committee (LPC) in its meeting dated 03.10.2018 and the same was approved by the Infrastructure Development Committee (IDC) on 08.10.2018. The petitioner- company deposited a total sum of Rs. 5,21,61,276/- with the RIICO as its application fees, sub-division charges, transfer of strip land, economic rent, service charges, commercial conversion charges interest and GST. On fulfillment of all the formalities, the RIICO executed necessary supplementary lease deeds and issued the required permissions/approvals in favour of the petitioner- company.
5. The State Government vide order dated 01.01.2019, constituted a Cabinet Committee to review the decisions taken by the previous Government in the last six months. The Cabinet Committee, vide its decision dated 03.08.2019 with respect to the permissions/approvals granted to the petitioner-company directed that "??????????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ???????| | ". In pursuance thereto, the State Government vide its order dated 10.10.2019, in exercise of its powers under Artic
Collector vs. Cine Exhibitors P. Ltd.
Co-operative Central Bank vs. Addl. Industrial Tribunal
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Mysore
J.R. Raghupathy vs. State of AP
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmi Chand & Ors.
Kumari Regina vs. St. Aloysius Higher Secondary School
M.I Builders Lts. vs. Radhe Shyam Sahu
Management of Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Workmen
Manuelsons Hotel Pvt Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Motilal Padampath Sugar Mills co. Ltd. vs. State of UP and Ors.
Naresh Chandra Sanyal vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd.
National Building Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan and Ors.
Nazir Ahmad vs. The King Emperor
P.V. Jagannath Rao vs. State of Orissa
R. Abdulla Rowther and Ors. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors.
R.K. Mittal vs. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 232
S.V.A. Steel Re-rolling Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India
Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. And Ors. vs. State of UP and Anr.
State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation
State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. And Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 465
State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and ors.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs. V.K. Shyam Sunder and Ors.. (2011) 8 SCC 737
V. B. ajagopala Naidu vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras
The State Government has the power to issue appropriate directions under Article 138 of the Articles of Association of RIICO to manage the affairs of the RIICO, but such power cannot be used to direc....
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.
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 emphasized the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.