Bombay High Court
M/S Balai Organic Food vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 3 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
(1) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 1991 of 2009
District : Jalgaon
M/s. Balai Exim,
Through its proprietor,
Shri Rajendrakumar Deepchand Balai,
Age : 54 years,
Occupation : Business,
Plot No. G-3/2-A, MIDC, Jalgaon,
Industrial Area, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. ig .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32).
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
MIDC, Mumbai.
3. The Regional Officer,
MIDC, Nashik.
4. The Deputy Engineer,
MIDC, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents.
.........................
With
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:40:15 :::
(2) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
Writ Petition No. 2036 of 2009
District : Jalgaon
M/s. Suchi Impex,
Through its proprietor,
Smt. Kantadevi Rajendrakumar Balai,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Business,
Plot No. G-3/2-B, MIDC, Jalgaon,
Industrial Area, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32).
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
MIDC, Mumbai.
3. The Regional Officer,
MIDC, Nashik.
4. The Deputy Engineer,
MIDC, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents.
.........................
With
Writ Petition No. 2088 of 2009
District : Jalgaon
M/s. Balai Organic Food
Through its proprietor,
Smt. Kantilal Deepchand Balai,
Age : 63 years,
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:40:15 :::
(3) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
Occupation : Business,
Plot No. G-3/2-C, MIDC, Jalgaon,
Industrial Area, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32).
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
MIDC, Mumbai.
3. The Regional Officer,
MIDC, Nashik.
4. The Deputy Engineer,
MIDC, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents.
.........................
Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Asst. Government Pleader,
for respondent no.1.
Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4.
..........................
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 3RD MARCH 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1. The petitioners assail the communication made to them with
(4) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
regard to additional premium being charged for not constructing it within
the stipulated time.
2. Mr. Talhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits
that the petitioners were allotted the writ plots by the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation and agreements to that effect were
also executed on 31st March 2004. As per the said agreement, the
petitioners were required to complete the factory building and other
structures on or before 29th November 2009 in all respects to the
satisfaction of the Executive Engineer of the MIDC. The learned Counsel
submits that before the said date, the petitioners have completed the
construction in all respects and had applied for completion certificate.
However, on 24-10-2008, the petitioners are issued with a communication
that they will be charged with additional premium and further interest on
the said additional premium. The said action is illegal and not in
consonance with the agreement.
3. Mr. Dande, the learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 -
MIDC, submits that it was mistake in the agreements. In fact, the plot was
allotted to the original allottee on 30th October 1995. This plot is
subsequently transferred and sub-divided in the name of the petitioners. In
the year 2004, agreement is effected to that effect. The said plot was
transferred without charging differential premium. According to the
learned Counsel, circulars are issued by the MIDC regarding plant
construction and charging of additional premium. Parties are bound to
follow the circulars issued from time to time. The petitioners cannot resile
or dissent from the terms and conditions in the agreement. The petitioners
(5) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
are bound to pay the additional premium for not constructing within the
stipulated period. The same is legal and proper.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
respective parties. It is not disputed that the agreements have been
executed in favour of the petitioners on 31st March 2004. The said plots
are transferred in the name of the petitioners by following due procedure.
The agreements i.e. the lease deeds are validly entered between the parties.
The relevant clause with regard to the construction reads as under :-
"
AND WHEREAS although the work of construction
of the factory building and other structures
agreed to be constructed by the Lessee on the said
land is still in progress the Lessee has requested
the Lessor to grant to the Lessee a Lease of the
said land which the Lessor has agreed to do on the
Lessee undertaking to complete the said factory
building and the other structures on or before the
29th day of November 2009 in all respects to the
satisfaction of the Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, in
charge of the said Industrial Area (hereinafter
called "the Executive Engineer" which expression
shall include any other officer to whom the duties
or functions of the said Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
may be assigned). "
5. Upon reading said clause, it is manifest that the petitioners
were required to complete the factory building and other structures in all
respects to the satisfaction of the Executive Engineer on or before 29th day
of November 2009. It is not disputed that the petitioners have made
construction before 29th November 2009. Subsequently, the respondents
(6) W. P. Nos. 1991, 2036 & 2088 of 2009
have satisfied themselves and also issued the completion certificate
pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. Now, the respondent -
Corporation is coming with a case that the date mentioned in the
agreement for completion of the building and structure i.e. 29th November
2009 is by mistake. This plea has not been raised prior to filing of the
petitions nor any rectification deed has been entered between the parties.
Parties certainly would be bound by the terms and conditions of the
agreement. The petitioners have abided by the terms and conditions of the
agreement. In the light of that, it would not be open for the respondents
now to contend otherwise.
6.
In the light of above, the Writ Petitions are allowed.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C" in each of the
petitions. No costs.
( A.M. BADAR ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
................................
puranik / WP1991.09etc
