IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL nd ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 19263 of 2016 BETWEEN:-

VEMAA EQUIPMENTS LIMITED THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI ANKIT JAIN OFFICE 40 SURUCHI NAGAR KOTRA ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. ADITI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. M.P. AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM BHOPAL LTD. THR. TAWA COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR BITTAN MARKET E-5 ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. MP TRADE AND INVESTMENT FACILITATION CORPORATION LIMITED (TRIFAC) 16-A ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT 16-A ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SHUBHAM MACHCHANI - ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed in case No.10213/2020 by the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, Bhopal terminating the lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner. Against the said order, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA petitioner had preferred an appeal on 31.10.2012 in terms of the provisions contained in M.P. Rajya Audyogik Bhumi Avam Audhyogik Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2008 wherein Rule 25 prescribes for filing of an appeal within ninety days from the date of passing of an order before the Chairman, MP Audyogik Vikas Nigam i.e. Managing Director of MPSIDC. This appeal came to be decided by the Chirman of MPSIDC on 26.12.2014. Later order is also under challenge.

Ms. Aditi Shrivastava submits that in fact there is no violation of clauses

7 and 18 of the lease deed. Production could not commence because lull in the market and principles of natural justice were not followed. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had preferred another application in terms of Rules of 2015, namely, M.P. Rajya Audhyogik Bhumi Avam Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2015 and in terms of Rule 41, there is provision of appeal and review, therefore, the review was filed but that review too has been dismissed.

Ms. Aditi Shrivastava has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 659. Reading from paragraph 32 of the said judgment, she submits that when the amendment relates to procedure then no person having a vested right in a course of procedure can be denied that right. If by a statutory change, the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode without exception unless there is a different stipulation. Thus, placing reliance on this decision, it is submitted that the chairman, MPSIDC which was, later on, renamed as Madhya Pradesh Trade & Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited (TRIFAC) arbitrarily rejected the application for review only on the ground that review in the matter is Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA permissible only under the Rules of 2015. It is also submitted that no spot inspection was carried out and therefore, the order of cancellation of lease-

deed being cryptic and against the interest of industry, needs to be set aside.

Shri Shubham Mancchani submits that three orders are under challenge in this petition, namely, order dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Managing Director of MP Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam; order dated 26.12.2014 passed by Managing Director of MPSIDC passed on an appeal preferred by the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2008; and order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Managing Director of MPTRIFAC rejecting review petition as filed by the petitioner in terms of provisions of the 2015 Rules.

It is submitted that no opportunity was given and no show-cause notice was given is not made out. Shri Shubham Manchhani draws attention of this Court to Annexure R-1/