Madras High Court
M.K.Shanmugasundaram vs M/S.Vetrivel Minerals ... on 5 June, 2023
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.06.2023
CORAM
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SURESH KUMAR
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Cont.A.(MD)No.4 of 2019
and Sub Application Nos.2317 & 2318 of 2019
1.M.K.Shanmugasundaram
The Development Commissioner
Madras Export Processing Zone,
Special Economic Zone & HEOUs in Tamil Nadu
Pondicherry & Andaman Nicobar Islands
Administrative Office Building,
National Highway – 45
Tambaram
Chennai
2.N.Rajalingam
The Assistant Development Commissioner
Madras Export Processing Zone,
Special Economic Zone & HEOUs in Tamil Nadu
Pondicherry & Andaman Nicobar Islands
Administrative Office Building,
National Highway – 45
Tambaram
Chennai 45 .. Appellants/Contemnors
/Respondents 1 & 2
Vs.
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
M/s.Vetrivel Minerals (V.V.Minerals)
Sy. No.424 and 416
AMRL Hi Tech City Limited (SEZ)
Nanguneri, Tirunelveli
Rep. by its
Managing Partner .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
against the common order made in Cont.P.(MD) No.1180 of 2018 in
WMP(MD) No.7319 of 2017 in W.P.(MD) No.9589 of 2017 dated
26.02.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
Additional Solicitor General
of India assisted by
Mr.D.Saravanan
CGSSC
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.]
This contempt appeal has been preferred against the order of
punishment inflicted against the appellant by the learned Single Judge in
Cont.P.(MD) No.1180 of 2018 dated 26.02.2019. In fact, against the
respondent herein, the appellant department had granted a Letter of
Approval (in short 'LoA') by proceedings dated 02.12.2011 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
manufacturing process in a Special Economic Zone under the provisions of
the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (In short SEZ Act). The said
license/permission, according to the terms and conditions of the said
proceedings dated 02.12.2011, will be valid for a period of five years from
the date of commencement of production/service activities. While that
being so, in view of the input received by the appellant department from
various sources, they decided to suspend the approval dated 02.12.2011 and
accordingly, a suspension order has been issued by the appellant department
on 28.12.2016. The said order of suspension was under challenge in
W.P(MD) No.9589/2017 filed by the respondent herein.
2. In the said writ petition, by order dated 25.05.2017, a learned Judge
granted an interim order of stay of the said suspension order.
3. Subsequently, since the five years period of the permission
originally granted by the department dated 02.12.2011 was about to be
completed or already been over, it seems that a renewal application has been
made by the respondent to the appellant department. In consideration of the
said renewal application made by the respondent, the appellant department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
taking note of the development that had been taken place, which culminated
in the suspension order and other aspects, had issued a show cause notice on
09.10.2017 asking show cause from the respondent within 30 days as to
why request for renewal of LoA cannot be rejected by the appellant
department.
4. On receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent, instead of
giving show cause to the appellant department, had filed a contempt petition
alleging that when the order of suspension itself has been stayed by the
Court, subsequently renewal application, if at all to be considered, it should
be considered positively in favour of the respondent and in this regard, there
was no room for the appellant department to even sought for show cause.
Therefore, treating the said show cause as a violation, such contempt
petition was filed.
5. The learned Judge, who heard the contempt petition, after hearing
both sides, had passed an order in the said contempt petition on 26.02.2019
whereby the learned Judge had inflicted the punishment against the
appellants sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
two weeks and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid within three
weeks, failing which, they shall undergo further imprisonment for two more
weeks and also the learned Judge stayed the show cause notice dated
09.10.2017.
6. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned Judge and also
the said contempt petition, by which, the punishment of imprisonment, since
has been inflicted against the appellant officers, this contempt appeal has
been filed.
7. Assailing the said order of punishment awarded by the learned
Judge, which is impugned herein, the learned Additional Solicitor General
for the appellants would canvass the point to state that the very permission
order was granted by the department on 02.12.2011 for a period of five
years from the date of commencement of production/service activities,
which, according to the respondent, had been commenced from the very
passing of such order of permission and subsequently even though a
specific date has been mentioned as 31.03.2012, as the commencing date, in
both way, the original permission granted by the department was expired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
and therefore, assuming that the order of suspension had been issued by the
department, if it is erroneously or otherwise, they would not create a new
way to agitate the issue by giving a cause of action to challenge that
suspension order. However, since the writ Court had granted interim order
of suspension order, taking further advantage of the said order passed by the
Writ Court, the respondent, though had already applied for renewal, which
had been considered and show cause notice was issued, instead of opposing
the same by giving show cause, had moved this Court ie., before the learned
Judge, filing the contempt petition stating that the issuance of very show
cause notice by the appellant department must be construed as a violation of
the interim order passed by the Writ Court granting stay of the order of
suspension.
8. Though this point has been canvassed before the learned Judge that
has not been considered in proper perspective and the learned Judge has
come to the conclusion that there has been violation of the order, ie., the
interim order of stay granted by the Writ Court, by then, the punishment
which is impugned herein, was inflicted against the appellant officers for no
fault on them. Therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
seeks indulgence of this Court.
9. In fact, this contempt appeal had come up for hearing before us on
02.06.2023, on that date even though the appellant side was ready for
arguments, there was no representation for the respondent and the earlier
counsel, who represented, namely, Mr.Kingsly Solomon, joined through
Video Conferencing and stated that already change of vakalat had been
given by him at the request of the respondent and today also though he
appeared and reported the same, there is no other counsel appearing and it
seems that no alternative arrangement had been made by the respondent.
10. Since the Court already waited for the appearance of the
respondent atleast twice before us, since there had been no representation,
we decided to take up the matter on merits. That is how, we heard the
matter at length with the arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor
General for the appellants. Further since it is an appeal arising out of the
punishment under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, naturally, it is an
issue between the appellants, who suffered with the punishment, and the
Court. Therefore, we have heard the matter at length as stated above and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
decided to dispose of the same on merits.
11. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for the appellants, first of all, the letter of
approval issued by the appellant department dated 02.12.2011 is only for
five years period from the date of commencement and as per the averment
made by the respondent before this Court, such a commencement, since has
been made, since the date of LoA, it should only be construed that five years
period is over by 02.12.2016.
12. Only thereafter, the suspension order was passed by the appellant
department on 28.12.2016. Therefore, prima facie we are of the view that
the said suspension order dated 28.12.2016 was not at all necessitated as the
five years approval period was over by then.
13. Assuming that since there has been a fictitious date some time in
March 2012 as the commencing date, even that date if it is reckoned to be
the five years period is over, when the writ petition filed by the respondent
challenging the order of suspension, was taken up for hearing, only on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
25.05.2017, the learned Judge stayed the suspension order as on that date,
the five years period was over. Therefore, the very suspension order itself
either become otiose or become infructuous.
14. Therefore, after the five years period was over, since the
respondent sought for renewal for further period, it is for the appellant
department to consider such a renewal application on its own merits and to
take a decision.
15. In this process, the appellant department, having taken note of the
past history, which, in fact, triggered them to culminate in the suspension
order, had decided to issue a show cause notice on 09.10.2017, which was
considered as an alleged violation of the interim order of stay granted on
25.05.2017 and that is how, the said contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.
(MD) No.1180/2018, wherein, the impugned order has been passed
inflicting the punishment of two weeks simple imprisonment on the
appellant officers and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
16. The said punishment awarded by the learned Judge through the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
impugned order is absolutely unnecessary and in fact, there has been no
ground to entertain even the contempt petition since no violation of the
order dated 25.05.2017 could be noticed because the show cause notice
dated 09.10.2017 is an independent action to consider the renewal
application made by the respondent and that does not have any connection
with the interim order dated 25.05.2017.
17. Moreover, on the date of interim order passed by the writ Court
dated 25.05.2017, since the five years permission period had already been
lapsed, as we have already stated, the question of granting interim stay does
not arise. However, we do not want to go into that aspect, since it is only a
contempt appeal.
18. Moreover, the order of suspension granted by one authority and
consideration of the renewal application is vested with another authority
that has been pointed out by the learned Judge in the order impugned at
Paragraph No.22 that still add some ground only to the appellant and not in
favour of the respondent. Therefore, for that reason also, we do not find any
merit in the order of punishment awarded by the learned Judge through the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
impugned order. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned
order does not sustain in the eye of law as well as the same is liable to be
interfered with.
19. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, the
punishment awarded against the appellant officers is hereby vanished and
the order of stay granted in the impugned order against the show cause
notice issued by the appellant department dated 09.10.2017 also gets
vacated. Therefore, it is open to the appellant department to independently
proceed with the said renewal application on its own merits, provided, if the
respondent still insist upon to get such renewal for which it is open to the
respondent to make his request in writing to reiterate his renewal
application to be considered on merits by giving such request to the
appellant department within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
20. If no such written request comes from the respondent, it is made
clear that the appellant department can dispose of the renewal application
based on the available records within a period of four weeks from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
of receipt of a copy of this order.
21. With these directions, the contempt appeal is ordered accordingly.
No costs. consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
05.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.AMD)No.4 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR,J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
RR
Cont.A(MD)No.4 of 2019
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
