Mamta Steels Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs Regional Manager and Others

Akil Kureshi, J.—Petition has been filed by a company in liquidation. Petitioner was allotted plot No. 1512 at Kerala GIDC Estatein the year 1992. Since the Petitioner did not pay thenecessary charges, at one point of time, possession wastaken back in the year 1998. Petitioner''s dues wererestructured. However, since according to GIDC, such dueswere also not paid, possession was reclaimed on 16.12.2002.

It is the case of the Petitioner that on 26.11.2001, it hadapplied for change of date of allotment from 17.11.1992 i.e. the date of initial allotment to 8.1.1996 i.e. thedate when the Company received GEB power connection. The case of the GIDC, however, is that no such prayer was madeprior to 26.11.2003. In view of the discussion hereinafter,this controversy becomes insignificant.

Request of the Petitioner for change of date of allotment after one round of litigation before the High Court where he sought permission to pursue his representation came to be rejected by the Respondent by impugned order dated17.8.2007. For rejecting the request, following two grounds have been stated in the order:

I. That such request was made after the possession was taken over; and, II. That by the time, request was made, the Petitioner hadalready gone into liquidation.

Though these are the two grounds, on which the rejectionorder was passed, in the affidavit-in-reply, it is statedby GIDC that for the reasons stated by the Petitioner, nosuch shift in the date of allotment can be granted. It isspecified that in other cases, change of date of allotmentwas allowed because for reasons attributable to GIDC,electricity could not be supplied to plot holders.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both factualaspects on which the impugned rejection order was passedare incorrect. He relied on affidavits of the Petitionerand the documents annexed to contend that in large numberof similar cases, GIDC had granted request to change ofdate of allotment.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for GIDC opposed thepetition contending that there is no provision for changeof date of allotment and request of the Petitioner wasbelated. In other cases, such request was granted where forreasons attributable to GIDC electric connection could notbe given to plot holders.

It is not in dispute that Petitioner had approached thisCourt for similar relief but withdrew the petition forpursuing his representation before the GIDC. Question ofmaintainability of the petition will arise. Be that as itmay, I have examined the issues on merits also. At theoutset, I may record that if the case of the Petitioner that he had applied for change of date of allotment on 15th March, 2001 is correct, the grounds stated for rejection ofthe prayer would not factually be valid. It is, however, the case of the GIDC that such prayer was made for thefirst time in November, 2003. For the purpose of thisorder, I am prepared to proceed on the basis that thePetitioner''s application was actually made in the year 2001and that both the grounds stated in the impugned order weretherefore factually not accurate.

Despite this, I am of the opinion that no direction can begiven in favour of the Petitioner. Firstly, it is not indispute that twice the possession of the plot was takenover due to non-payment of the legal charges to the GIDC. Eventually, GIDC repossessed the plot in December, 2002. Admittedly, prior to March, 2001, Petitioner had never raised the issue of change of date of allotment. ThePetitioner requested for such change on the ground that he succeeded in getting GEB power connection only in the year1996. For 4 years, therefore, he could not start his industry on the plot allotted by GIDC. It is not even the case of the Petitioner that he failed to obtain GE Bconnection for any reason which can be attributed to GIDC. If that is so, simply because, for some reason or theother, GEB did not grant power connection to thePetitioner. Request of the Petitioner for the change of thedate would not be acceptable. Whatever the dispute between the Petitioner and the GEB, GIDC cannot be made to lose its legal charges on account of delayed installations for electric connection. Affidavit of GIDC also explains thatin other cases, change of date was allowed when the plotholders could not obtain GEB connection on account ofreasons attributable to GIDC. The case of the Petitioner is clearly distinguishable.

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.