AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lok Pal Singh, J
Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order dated 05.07.2011, issued by respondent no. 6. Another prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondents to include khasra no. 60Ka & 61 of Village Jashodharpur in Annexure II in the list of existing industrial estates to the Notification no. 50 dated 10.06.2003 after taking it out from Annexure III to the amended Notification no. 27 dated 19.05.2005. A further prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondents to allow fiscal incentives to the unit of the petitioner situated on Khasra no. 60KA & 61 of Village Jashodharpur, District Pauri Garhwal as an existing industrial unit in an industrial area under the Notification no. 1 (10)/2001-NER dated 07.01.2003 and the Notification no. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003.
2) Brief facts, necessary for deciding the controversy in hand, are that the petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Registration Act, with its registered office and works office at Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and is engaged in manufacturing of iron ingots. For the purpose of providing a planned industrial development the undivided State of U.P. through U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) issued a Notification no. 340 Bha.U.a. XVIII-11-128 Bha./86 dated 10.03.1987 while exercising powers under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the State of U.P. issued notification no. 4255 Bha.u/18-11-12 Bha/86 dated 15.06.1987, whereby it proposed to issue a Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purposes of making effective the said acquisition proceedings for industrial development. Due publication to the said effect was issued on 03.04.1987, thereby a declaration of acquisition was made. In accordance with the schedule appended with the Notification issued under Section 6 it acquired the land lying in village Haldu Khata, Pargana Bhawar, Tehsil Kotdwar, Village Jashodharpur, district Pauri Garhwal. The entry made in the Column 5 includes khasra no. 60Ka and 61 and the land thus acquired against the two khasra numbers was 1.06 and 0.84 hectares out of the total land acquired i.e. 77.19 Acres or 31.235 hectares. As a consequence of the aforesaid acquisition the possession was taken on 26.11.1987 by UPSIDC.
3) It is alleged in the writ petition that owing to the aforesaid two Notifications the area of Khasra no. 60Ka and 61 were acquired for an industrial area and the industries were to be developed in accordance with the Industrial Development Act. The covenants of the allotment which are issued by UPSIDC after acquisition proceedings contains a stipulation that once the land has been allotted to entrepreneurs in an area acquired for industrial development they are restrained from using the said land for any other purpose. The said area after its acquisition was converted in an industrial area known as Jashodharpur, Kotdwar. It is contended that the entries made by UPSIDC in 1405 to 1410 Fasli would reveal that khasra no. 60Ka and 61 situated at Jashodharpur, Kodwar, was transferred to the petitioner for the period of 90 years and the possession of the same was delivered to the petitioner. In pursuance to the aforesaid allotment proceedings a lease deed on 06.01.1997 was executed in favour of the petitioner which was registered on 08.01.1997. Thereafter the petitioner established the unit and made it operational and started production from 31.03.1997.
4) Respondent no. 1 issued a Notification dated 08.01.2003 formulating the scheme regarding grant of capital subsidy. The said scheme was called Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme 2003. As per the said scheme the same is applicable to all industrial units in the growth of centers approved for Uttarakhand and also to new industrial units or existing units on their substantial expansion in growth centers, or industrial infrastructure development centers or industrial estates / parks / export promotion zones and commercial estates set up on State of Uttarakhand. Notification no. 49/2003 was issued on 10.06.2003 in exercise of powers under Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 3(3) of the Addl. Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and Section 3(3) of the Additional duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, purporting to exempt goods specified in the Schedule appended to the Notification and cleared from a unit in the State of Uttarakhand for a period of 10 years. Central Government issued another Notification no. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003, which stipulates grant of benefit applicable to the existing units existing before 07.01.2003 with a rider that the unit will undertake its substantial expansion by not less than 25% on or after 07.01.2003. However, said Notification also stipulates in addition to mentioning the location of the industrial estates at Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, two additional particulars were furnished, viz., that of the name of the industrial estate of Jashodharpur and khasra numbers of the said industrial estate. The case of the petitioner is that though its industrial unit is located in the industrial estate of Jashodharpur, but the same is not situated on the khasra numbers mentioned in the Notification dated 10.06.2003. It is contended that industrial unit of petitioner is situated on khasra no. 60Ka & 61 of Tehsil Kotdwar, but the same is situated within the industrial estate of Jashodharpur. It is further contended that khasra nos. 60Ka and 61 were inadvertently omitted in the Notification dated 10.06.2003. The requests made by the petitioner to the Industries Department of the State of Uttarakhand to incorporate the said khasra numbers in Notification dated 10.06.2003 were not considered till date.
Hence, present writ petition.
5) Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6) When this writ petition was listed before this Court for hearing on admission, a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2011 was pleased to pass the following order:
"Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 6.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent no. 3.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
List this petition after four weeks along with the record of Writ Petition No. 1846 (M/S) of 2011 showing the name of Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate as counsel for respondent no. 2. By that time, respondents may file counter affidavit."
7) The Writ Petition no. 1846 (M/S) 2011 was renumbered as Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015.
8) Though on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition was delinked from Writ Petition no. 1846 (M/S) of 2011 (renumbered as Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015) by order dated 03.06.2014, but the controversy involved in the present writ petition and Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015 is identical.
9) The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2015, passed in Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015, Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and others, along with analogous matter, dismissed the writ petition. As the issue involved in the present writ petition and Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015 is identical, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Writ Petition no. 01 (M/B) of 2015. As the counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that this case be decided on its own merit, I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court given in judgment (supra). Having considered the same, this Court is of the view that since the relief claimed by the petitioner is for inclusion of khasra nos. 60Ka and 61 in the Notification, this Court cannot issue a direction to include a specific khasra numbers or to exclude a specific khasra number in the Notification. Therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has not substance as issuance of Notification is a policy mater and falls exclusively within the domain of the concerned authority.
10) This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any direction to include khasra nos. 60Ka and 61 in the Notification unless the petitioner proves that this is an arbitrary and illegal action of the State Authorities in not including the said khasra numbers of the petitioner in the Notification.
11) Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 11.08.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/B) no. 01 of 2005, along with analogous matter, and also having considered the fact that the relief sought by the petitioner in regard to the direction for inclusion of his khasra numbers in the Notification, which amounts to interference in a policy matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.