Surya Creation vs Rajasthan State Industrial And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6904 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29353]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 757/2022

Surya Creation, 41, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj.) (Huf Firm) Through Its Karta Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Amar Chand, Aged 50 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 41, Bada Bas, District Pali (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corp. Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.

3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.

4. The District Industries Centre, Pali. Through General Manager Cum Member Secretary.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

06/09/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, submits that

identical matter, involving the identical issue, has already been

decided of by this Court in Rajat Sales Agency Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2022

alongwith other connected matters on 31.08.2023. The operative

portion of the judgment dated 31.08.2023 reads thus:-

"5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5.1...

[2023:RJ-JD:29353] (2 of 6) [CW-757/2022]

5.2...

6. Having regard to the first issue pertaining to Pali District, this Court observes that the respondent- RIICO, Pali issued the advertisement dated 11.05.2009 inviting applications for allotment of the industrial plots in question at the new and appropriately distant location for establishing the industries in question, in lieu of shifting of the industrial units. The petitioners filed the applications with all relevant documents before the respondents for allotment of the industrial plots in question; the respondents, vide the minutes of the dated 29.9.2009 and 05.11.2009, rejected the said applications. Thereafter, the order for re-consideration of the applications was passed by the Hon'ble Court, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents vide order dated 19.02.2021 rejected the said application of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondents proceeded to issue an e-auction notification on 03.03.2021 and also initiated the process for allotment of the plots of Punayata Industrial Area by way of auction.

6.1. This Court further observes that the list of the documents as mentioned in the advertisement in question, were as follows:

"1- ftl d`f"k Hkwfe ij m|ksx LFkkfir Fkk mlds [kljk ua- dh tekcanh dh udy ,oa ;fn uxjikfydk }kjk vkoafVr Hkwfe ij LFkkfir Fkk rks uxjikfydk dk Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk izek.k i=A 2- o"kZ 2004 ls iwoZ ds fo|qr dusD'ku fcy] fo|qr laca/k ,oa mRiknu ds vU; nLrkostksa izek.kA 3- vkosnudrkZ }kjk iwoZ esa LFkkfir vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ dks d`f"k Hkwfe@uxj ikfudk dh Hkwfe ls gVk;k tk pqdk gS bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= ¼:i;s 10@& ds ukWu T;wfMf'k;y LVkEi isij ij uksVsjh ls lR;kfir½ 4- ;fn fdlh fdjk;snkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M ds vkoaVu gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd Hkwfe Lokeh dks vkS|ksfxd {ks= iquk;rk esa Hkw[k.M dh vko';drk ugha gS vkSj uk gh iwoZ esa izkIr fd;k gS vkSj uk gh Hkfo"; esa ekax djsxkA" 6.2. This Court also observes that in some of the petitions, the petitioners do not have non-domestic electricity connection, even in some of the cases where

[2023:RJ-JD:29353] (3 of 6) [CW-757/2022]

domestic electricity bill was produced, the same pertained to the period after 2004, and thus, do not fall under the criteria lay down in the advertisement in question. This Court further observes that in some of the cases, handwritten electricity bills were produced, which were not authentic and reliable.

6.3. This Court further observes that in some of the cases, the industrial plots in question were already allotted to the tenants by the Allotment Committee, after due review of the applications, and now the landlord, cannot demand for dual allotments, as the same is not permissible under the law.

6.4. This Court also observes that the list of documents mentioned in the advertisement in question was mandatory to be complied with and each and every documents mentioned in the advertisement in question required to be submitted for consideration of the case for allotment of the industrial plots in question. 6.5. This Court also observes that all the documents mentioned in the advertisement in question were necessary to be submitted and the same was also held by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Vinayak Febtax Vs RIICO Ltd. Anr (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 769/2010, Other Connected Matter, decided on 25.03.2019), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:

"The writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The petitioners are directed to file fresh applications alongwith all necessary documents to prove their eligibility for their respective claim seeking allotment of an industrial plot and deposit the requisite charges on or before 15.05.2019.

4. While adjudging the entitlement of the applicants, the Allotment Committee shall act strictly in accordance with law and shall take into account the following factors:

i. Preferably the name of the industry is included/shown in any of the survey lists prepared by the State Authorities including the list prepared by the District Industries Centre, Pali.

[2023:RJ-JD:29353] (4 of 6) [CW-757/2022]

ii. The applicant has submitted the relevant documents as required in the advertisement issued by the RIICO for making allotment of industrial plot.

iii. The applicant has produced the documentary proof showing the existence and functioning of the industry prior to passing of the judgment of this Court in the year 2004."

6.6. This Court further observes that after a perusal of the material produced in each of the cases by the petitioners as well as the respondents, it becomes crystal clear that not a single petitioner has submitted the complete requisite documents, strictly as per the advertisement in question, and thus, they were rightly declared as ineligible for allotment of the industrial plots in question.

6.7. This Court also observes that the Allotment Committee, comprising, amongst others, the various officers from the Government Departments, have made due consideration and review of the documents so submitted by the petitioners, prior to passing of the impugned orders, and thus, this Court is completely satisfied that is nothing on record, which could show any arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned action of the respondents.

6.8. This Court further observes that the Survey was conducted by the concerned municipal body, whereafter, the Allotment Committee was constituted, which has decided to call the applications along with the aforementioned relevant documents of all the industrial units, whose names were shown in the survey list, for due consideration, examination and review. 6.9. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated 09.12.2011 has been issued whereby the applications were invited from the individual industrial units, whose names were not mentioned in the survey list; in pursuance of the said advertisement, 132 applications were received by the respondents and thereafter the said applications were rejected by the respondent vide the impugned communication. 6.10. This Court further observes that firstly, the Allotment Committee issued advertisement dated 14.10.2010 for inviting applications along with relevant

[2023:RJ-JD:29353] (5 of 6) [CW-757/2022]

documents for allotment of the industrial plots in question and thereafter, again issued the advertisement dated 01.11.2011 in the local newspaper; yet thereafter, the applications along with relevant documents were invited from the industrial units, whose names were included in the survey list, but then under some misconception an advertisement dated 09.12.2011 has been issued, whereby the application were invited from the industrial units, whose names were not included in the survey list.

6.11. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated 09.12.2011 was quashed on 08.06.2015, in the Committee meeting held under the Chairmanship of Minister of Industries, Jaipur, Principal Secretary, Industries & MD, RIICO, District Collector, Barmer and other officers, while stating that the names of the industries mentioned therein did not figure in the survey list, and therefore, cannot be considered for allotment of the industrial plots in question.

6.12. This Court further observes that the precondition for consideration for allotment of the industrial plots in question, was that the name of the industries must figure in the survey list, prepared in pursuance of the conducted by the concerned municipal body; but since the said condition was not fulfilled in case of the petitioners, therefore, their applications for the allotment in question stood rejected.

6.13. This Court also observes that the survey by the concerned municipal body was the important component for the purpose of shifting of the industries in question, and that, for consideration for allotment of the industrial plots in question, the concerned industries must have their existence in the non-conforming areas; therefore, due since such pre-condition was not duly fulfilled by the petitioners herein, which resulted into non-inclusion of their names in the survey list in question, therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 6.14. This Court further observes that the advertisement dated 09.12.2011 was not under consideration as the same was rejected/returned in meeting dated 08.06.2015 by the Committee, which comprised of members of higher posts, from various Government Departments, and therefore it cannot be said that any arbitrary and illegal action was taken by the said Committee.

[2023:RJ-JD:29353] (6 of 6) [CW-757/2022]

7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.

8. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of."

2. In view of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ

petition as well as stay petition are dismissed in terms of the

judgment passed by this Court in Rajat Sales Agency (Supra).

3 All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

334-/Jitender//-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)