Allowed

Prasad Enterprises, Thr. Prop., Kiran Shirsat., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2019WP/89/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa held that the petitioner's unit manufacturing packing material qualifies as an Industrial Undertaking under the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Allotment Regulations, 2014. The court directed the Respondent to execute the lease deed and issue an occupancy certificate. The court also noted the delay was unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to execute the lease deed and issue the occupancy certificate to the Petitioner within six weeks.

Prasad Enterprises, Thr. Prop., Kiran Shirsat., Vs State… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2019

¶4

M/s Prasad Enterprises
by and through Proprietor
Mr. Kiran Shirsat
Proprietor, Plot 282,
Kundaim Industrial Estate,
Kundaim, Ponda Goa. …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.State of Goa,
Through its Chief Secretary,
having office at the Secretariat,
Porvorim Goa 403 521.

¶7

2.The Goa Industrial Development Corporation
through its Managing Director,
Address: Patto Plaza,
…
Panaji Goa 403 001Respondents

¶8

Mr. Venkatesh Ameya Nayak Salatry, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. P. Bhandari, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
No.1.

¶10

Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

2 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶12

Coram : M. S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶13

Date : 26^th February, 2019

¶14

Oral Judgment ( Per M. S. Sonak, J)

¶15

 Heard Mr. V. Nayak Salatry, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Ms. P. Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate
for Respondent No.1 and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2.

¶16

2. Rule. With the consent and at the request of the learned
counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respective
Respondents waive service on Rule.

¶18

4. There is no dispute that in the year 2016, the Respondent
No.2 which is a statutory corporation established under the Goa
Industrial Development Act, 1965 issued an advertisement dated 23rd
November, 2015 inviting applications for allotment of 20 plots at
Kundaim Industrial Estate. The Petitioner, was one of the applicants,
whose case was considered by the screening committee and ultimately,

¶19

3 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶20

vide allotment order dated 29th August, 2016 was allotted plot
No.B25-26/08 admeasuring 1050 square metres on the basis of sub-
lease. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has complied with the
terms of the allotment order dated 29th August, 2016 and even
completed the construction of the industrial unit on the said plot.
Mr. Salatry, learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the
Petitioner in fact has manufacturing unit in the very adjacent plot.
The Petitioner contends that there is unreasonable delay in execution
of the lease deed and issuance of occupancy certificate, on account of
which the Petitioner is unable to commence the manufacturing
activities in the industrial unit so set up on the plot in question.

¶21

5. Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel for Respondent No.2
submits that there was some dispute as to whether the Petitioner is an
industrial undertaking set up as manufacturing industry or whether
the Petitioner is required to be classified as service industry. He
submits that in order to resolve this issue, by letter dated 27th August,
2018, a reference is made to the Under Secretary (Industries)
Government of Goa and since the response is awaited, there was delay
in execution of the lease deed and the issuance of occupancy
certificate. Mr. Naik refers to the affidavit filed by Mr. S. V. Naik,
Managing Director of Respondent No.2 which states same position as

¶22

4 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶23

articulated by him.

¶24

6.The Petitioner has made a statement that the Petitioner is
an industrial unit concerned with manufacture of packing material of
sanitary napkins. The record indicates that this was the precise purpose
indicated by the Petitioner at the time he applied for allotment of the
plot in question. The record also indicates that this was the material
which was considered by the screening committee which
recommended the allotment of plot in favour of the Petitioner.
Ultimately, even the allotment order which was issued to the Petitioner
states that the plot has been allotted for "manufacture of packing of
sanitary napkins".

¶25

7. Section 3(h) of the Goa Industrial Development
Corporation Allotment Regulations, 2014 defines the "Industrial
Undertaking" to mean as follows :

¶26

“(i) Manufacturing Industry related to manufacture of all
types of goods except liquor and tobacco products;
(ii) Captive warehousing means warehousing required for
storage of its own raw material or finished goods by a
manufacturing unit, provided such a manufacturing unit
is located within the State of Goa;

¶27

(iii) Information Technology, Units including ITES &
BPO Services employing a minimum of 50 persons;

¶28

(iv) Research & Development Centre's employing a

¶29

5 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶30

minimum of 25 persons;

¶31

(v) Automobile repair & services with showroom area not
exceeding 10% of the built up area;

¶32

(vi)Solid Waste Management & treatment facilities
including hazardous waste management facilities as per
the directives of the Government;

¶33

(vii) Scrap yards as per the directives of the Government;
(viii) Any other Special Project approved for land
allotment as per the directions of the Government of Goa
or the Investment Promotion Board other than those
defined under clauses 3(i), (j), (k) & (l).”

¶34

8. Similarly, Section 3(j) of the Goa Industrial Development
Corporation Allotment Regulations, 2014 defines the expression
"Service Industry" to mean the following :

¶35

“Service Industry” for the purpose of these regulations
shall mean and include Logistics and Warehousing other
than captive warehousing.”

¶36

9. According to us, it is very clear that the Petitioner's unit is
included within the definition of "Industrial Undertaking" as defined
under Section 3(h) of the Goa Industrial Development Corporation
Allotment Regulations, 2014. In fact, in the record placed before us
and the statements in the affidavit made by Mr. S. V. Naik, Managing
Director of Respondent No.2, we find that this matter was referred to
the Board of Respondent No.2 and even the Board of Respondent

¶37

 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶38

No.2 was satisfied that the Petitioner's unit is an Industrial
Undertaking. The Board, in fact resolved that necessary lease deed be
executed with the Petitioner.

¶39

10. Despite the aforesaid, a reference has been made to the
Under Secretary ( Industries). According to us, such a reference was
wholly unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶40

11. The allotment in favour of the Petitioner was on the basis
that the Petitioner's unit is an Industrial Undertaking. The Petitioner
affirms that he intends to manufacture of packing material of sanitary
napkins. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 3(h) of
the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Allotment Regulations,
2014, we are satisfied that the Petitioner's unit is an Industrial
Undertaking for the purpose of manufacture of packing material of
sanitary napkins.

¶41

12. Accordingly, we find no reason as to why Respondent
No.2 should not be directed to execute the lease deed and issue
occupancy certificate to the Petitioner.

¶42

13. We accordingly direct the Respondent No.2 to execute the

¶43

7 WP89-19 dt. 26-02-2019

¶44

lease deed with the Petitioner as per the terms of the allotment set out
in the allotment order dated 29th August, 2016. Similarly, we also
direct the Respondent No.2 to issue necessary occupancy certificate
since no other impediments in the issuance of the same were pointed
out to us. The exercise of execution of lease deed and issuance of
occupancy certificate to be completed as expeditiously as possible and
in any case within a period of six weeks from today.

¶45

14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.

¶46

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M. S. Sonak, J.

¶47

at*

Prasad Enterprises, Thr. Prop., Kiran Shirsat., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Enterprises, Thr. Prop., Kiran Shirsat., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Carvalho E Rodrigues., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Ryan Fernandes, Presently Serving Sentence at Central Jail, Colvale., Vs the Office of Superintendent, Central Jail Colvale and 2 Ors.

Kamlakant Gopinath Phadte, Presently Serving Sentence at Modern Central Jail, Colvale., Vs the Office of Superintendent, Central Jail Colvale and Anr.

Ujjaini Prabhu Dessai., Vs the Curchorem Cacora Municipal Council, Rep. Thr. Its Chief Officer and 2 Ors.

William Gonsalves., Vs S. v. Naik and 2 Ors.

Krishnakanth B. Mhaloji., Vs Village Panchayat of Arpora Nagoa, Thr. Its Secretary and 5 Ors.