WPMS/1547/2019
2021 Latest Caselaw 4562 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
      ON THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                                 BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1547 of 2019
BETWEEN:
M/s Sherpurdev Organic
Private Ltd.                                                     ...Petitioner
      (Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash,
      Advocate for the petitioner)

AND:

State of Uttarakhand and others                              ...Respondents
      (Mr.   T.S.   Phartiyal,   Additional   Chief   Standing   Counsel   for   the
      State/respondent nos. 1 and 2)

                             JUDGMENT

According to the petitioner, in the year 2018, he proposed to set-up a Mushroom Production Industry in Village Sherpur Khelmou, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 in respect of the land, on which, the industry was proposed to be set- up, petitioner submitted a map to State Industrial Development Authority for obtaining necessary approval. He further submits that petitioner had deposited a sum of ` 17,500/-, through bank draft, in favour of State Industrial Development Authority and another sum of ` 1,00,000/- in the name of Sachiv Uttarakhand Bhawan Aivam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, in the month of June, 2018. According to him, due to delay on the part of the

State Industrial Development Authority in taking decision in the matter, petitioner has not been able to set-up mushroom production industry, so far.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since necessary approval has not been granted by State Industrial Development Authority as yet, therefore now petitioner has lost interest in the project and he wants his money back, which he deposited for obtaining approval. He further submits that declaration in respect of the land in question, over which, petitioner proposed to set-up the unit, has been withdrawn and nature of the land has been restored as agricultural land.

4. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner's application for approval has not been considered by State Industrial Development Authority (Respondent No.2) so far and the amount of ` 1,00,000/-, which petitioner had deposited in the name of Sachiv Uttarakhand Bhawan Aivam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, on the direction of Respondent No.2, is also lying with Respondent No.2, therefore, Respondent No.2 be directed to consider petitioner's request for refund of the amount so deposited.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority in State Industrial Development Authority. If petitioner makes such representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken as early as

possible, but not later than ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham