Indian Analytical Laboratories vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner was allotted an industrial plot of 2171 square meters by the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (from hereinafter referred to as the "SIDCUL") at industrial area Estate Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The allotment was done on 18.07.2005 and the lease deed was executed on 16.11.2005 and the possession was handed-over to the petitioner on 31.12.2005. As per the lease deed, the petitioner was to start the production in the said premises within a period of two years i.e. by 15.11.2007. The allotment was made for the purposes for manufacturing of Inject Tablets, Eye/ear drops and ointments. Since this could not be done and in fact the infrastructure itself was not laid out, this allotment was cancelled by the SIDCUL vide order dated 15.01.2008, which is presently been challenged before this Court.

The case of the petitioner before this Court is that it is not that they had done nothing on the said plot. They have taken the electricity connection and the filling of the land has been done by them. Meanwhile, out of the three partners, two main partners i.e. father and son, who were returning to Delhi on 13.05.2007 met with an accident and in the said accident they sustained spinal injuries and were advised bed rest for almost a year and consequently they could not raise the construction of the factory. The third partner Ms. Sudesh Tyagi, the wife of Mr. V.K. Tyagi was not able to look after the business interest. Thereafter on 10.02.2008 Ms. Sudesh Tyagi wrote a letter to the Managing Director of SIDCUL stating that some further time be given to them for the construction of the factory. Though the SIDCUL has agreed to consider the request of the petitioner but this can be done only as per the current policy.

Petitioner admittedly has violated the conditions of the contract. The petitioner though seeks parity with Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. as Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. which had also committed a breach of the contract inasmuch as it had also not set up the factory in time but its writ petition against the cancellation of its plot was allowed by this Court.

However, the case of Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. has been distinguished by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vega Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd., on grounds that unlike Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Vega Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd., had not done any investment or any construction work which may justify the recall of their cancellation. Vega Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. in turn filed a special appeal being SPA No.108 of 2011 against the order of the learned Single which has been dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2018 and in paragraph nos.31 to 34 distinction has been made which is as follows:-

"31. Be it noted also that the judgment in Haldiram's case (supra) came to be rendered on 18.12.2008; whereas, the judgment in the appellant's own writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 387 of 2009 came to be rendered on 29.12.2009, incidentally, by the very same learned Judge. Though an attempt was made, apparently, by the appellant to take advantage of the judgment, which was rendered in Haldiram's case (supra), the learned Single Judge was, apparently, not inclined, is what we would think is the result of reading of the judgment.

In paragraph 4 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 387 of 2009 filed by the appellant, we notice the following case set-up:

"4. .....It is further pleaded that the petitioner only wants that the restoration charges be waived of but such favour cannot be given to the petitioner, as the policy is applicable to one and all alike. It is pleaded that the petitioner has sought parity with the case of M/s Haldi Ram & Company, but that case was on a different footing."

We also notice that, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the respondents disputed the claim based on Haldiram's case (supra) on the basis that the said case was different as the opportunity was not given to the said allottee. The learned Single Judge has, apparently, not thought it fit to extend the very same benefit, as was given in Haldiram's case (supra), as we have already noticed from the relief, which was granted. Therefore, the case, which is sought to be built around the decision in Haldiram's case (supra), may not be available in the second round of litigation, which is what we are dealing with in this appeal.

No doubt, we do notice that there is reference, in Haldiram's case, to 29 other entrepreneurs, who were given favourable treatment as is sought for by the appellant, and which carried considerable weight in the Court arriving at the conclusions and granting the relief in Haldiram's case (supra). At this juncture, it is also apposite, therefore, to refer to the case that was sought to be projected in the rejoinder affidavit filed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 387 of 2009, which, though not on record, was made available by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therein, it appears that the appellant did make an attempt to refer to the case of 29 allottees, who were given, apparently, the treatment, which is favourable to them, as compared with what has been done to the appellant. When the present writ petition was, however, filed, appellant has not sought to introduce pleadings alleging discrimination vis-à-vis the 29 persons. Apparently, the learned Single Judge, in the earlier round of litigation, namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 387 of 2009, has also not given relief to the appellant based on the plea of discrimination vis-à-vis the 29 persons. As we have noted, this plea as against the 29 persons is not specifically put forth in the writ petition as such."

The case of the petitioner is simply that he may also be given parity with Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this cannot be granted. The case of Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd was on different footing altogether.

All the same, the learned counsel for the SIDCUL submits that they are ready to give a plot to the petitioner on the present terms and conditions, as it prevails today and they would also be returning the amount of Rupees Twelve Lakh odd which has been deposited by the petitioner with SIDCUL after making the necessary deductions.

The petitioner, however, at this stage says that they are in a financial difficulty. In case this is so, they would be at liberty to move a representation before the Managing Director, SIDCUL who shall consider the representation of the petitioner for withdrawal of their entire deposit. Let the same be considered sympathetically.

With the observations as above, the writ petition stands disposed.