Back
2018 Supreme(All) 858
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : PANKAJ MITHAL AND SARAL SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
GORAKHPUR TEXPARK PRIVATE LTD. ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 4513, 1110, 1292 and 71450 of 2011, decided on 2nd July, 2018)
Counsel :
Rakesh Pande, S.K. Tiwari, Ravi Kant, Ajay Kumar Singh and Ashish Kumar Singh for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Abhishek Misra, Akhilanand Mishra, Dhananjay Awasthi, K.M. Mishra, Nripendra Mishra and Sanjay Kumar Tripathi for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Area Development Act, 1976—Sections 13 and 14—Allotment—Plot—Cancellation of without affording opportunity of hearing—Breach of conditions of allotment by allottee—Not need to give opportunity of hearing to allottee company by CEO before passing cancellation order. [Paras 46, 47 and 48]
(B) Industrial Area Development Act, 1976—Sections 2 (b), 4(3), 6 (2) (f), 7 and 12—U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Section 51—Allotment—Plot—Delegation of power by CEO to Additional CEO—Impermissibility/Permissibility—Held, power of CEO to delegate its power to other authority emanates from Section 12 of Act, 1976 by adopting Section 51 of Act, 1973 which confers power upon CEO of Authority to delegate its power to such officer of authority subject to conditions as may be specified by him in this respect—In instant case CEO passed order of allotment by making a note on note-sheet and thereafter only a ministerial work of issuing allotment letter was given to ACEO—Thus final decision to allot land was that of CEO and as such there was no delegation by CEO with regard to his power to allot land. [Paras 62 and 63]
(C) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14—Industrial Area Development Act, 1976—Sections 13 and 14—Allotment—Plot—No advertisement issued calling for application from open market—Illegality/Legality—Authority considered claim of all applicants including petitioner—Hence it is not open to petitioner to challenge allotment in favour of new allottee on ground that it was hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India—Further allotment of land done under G.O. dt. 30.11.2006 which was with respect to a particular class of entrepreneurs—Aforesaid Government order provided a complete mechanism and checks and balance for allotting land to entrepreneurs who were eligible to establish industries—Thus, there was no violation of Article 14 of Constitution. [Para 71]
Result; Petitions Dismissed.
Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.—We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner M/s. Gallant Ispat Limited; Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Gorakhpur Texpark Private Limited; Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Hirak Tie-up Private Limited; Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Sri Shashi Nandan alongwith Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Writ-A No. 71450 of 2011 has become infructuous, therefore, the same may be dismissed as infructuous.
3. The Gorakhpur Texpark Private Limited in Writ-A No. 4213 of 2011 has challenged the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘CEO’), Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘GIDA’), whereby the allotment of plot situate in Sector-23 of GIDA in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.
4. Further, the petitioners in all the writ petitions have questioned the illegality of the allotment letter dated 10.12.2010, whereby the plot No. AL-2, situate in Sector-23, GIDA, Gorakhpur has been allotted to one M/s. Ankur Udyog Limited.
5. Since in all the writ petitions, common issues have cropped up, therefore, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
6. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding the controversy have been taken from the pleadings in Writ-A No. 4513 of 2011. The facts stated in other writ petitions shall be detailed at the relevant place.
7. The facts as culled out from the pleadings in Writ-A No. 4513 of 2011 are that the petitioner Gorakhpur Texpark Private Limited was a company registered under the Companies Act. It had approached the GIDA, Gorkahpur for allotment of a plot under Bulk Land Policy. Acting upon the request of the petitioner, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, GIDA, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 19.6.2006 asked Sri S.K. Agrawal, Director, M/s. Gorakhpur Texpark Private Limited to give consent with regard to the allotment of land situate in village Domharmafi and Sahbajganj, District Gorakhpur.
8. It transpires from the record that the Central Government had framed a scheme known as ‘Scheme for Integrated Textile Parks (hereinafter referred to as ‘SITP’). The primary object of the scheme was to provide the industry with world-class infrastructure facilities for setting up their textile units. The scheme further provided that at each ITP, there would be a separate Special Purpose Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘SPV’) formed with the representatives of local industry, financial institutions, State and Central Government. According to SITP, the SPV was to be a corporate body registered under the Companies Act.
9. The record reveals that Special Secretary, State of U.P. wrote a letter dated 31.3.2008 to the CEO, GIDA informing him the role of GIDA in the establishment of Textile Park. The said letter provided the conditions subject to which GIDA could collaborate for establishment of textile parks.
10. The petitioner, Gorakhpur Tex Park, [hereinafter referred as ‘’allottee company’] was allotted 81.54 acres of land situate in industrial Sector No. 23 by allotment letterdt.14.11.2006 issued by C.E.O,GIDA for establishment of Textile Park. The allotment of land was subject to conditions enumerated in allotment letter. The allottee company had been given the possession of land by GIDA on 6.5.2008.
11. The Sanctioning Officer, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi informed the petitioner that the Project Approval Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘PAC’) in its meeting held on 16.5.2008 approved the project of t
