Petitioner challenged the cancellation of its industrial plot allotment due to non-utilization. The High Court held that the petitioner concealed a letter restricting non-industrial use and had failed to establish an industry for two decades. The petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2073 of 2007
Judgment reserved on:30.8.2011.
Date of decision: 01.9.2011
M/s.Jerath Electronics …Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others …Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate vice Sh.B.N. Misra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents.
Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
Act. It was set up for the production of key pad mechanism for electronic push button telephones on Plot No.20, Electronic Complex, Shoghi, Shimla. According to the petitioner, since the Company was not given subsidy and released the loans by the Government organizations within time it went into financial difficulties.
3
Department and the petitioner was required to give employment to persons belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was to set up the Factory shed within a time frame of 45 days. As per the terms of the lease deed the industrial concern was to complete the construction of the Unit within one year from the date of handing over of the possession and was to establish the Industrial Unit in the aforesaid period. In case of non-compliance of the conditions the State was entitled to resume the plot. It appears that in between the petitioner set up a 100% owned subsidiary known as M/s.Zameer Enterprises at plot No.17 was allotted to it.
4
cause notice on the same lines was issued on 8.7.2004. The petitioner did not still take any action but filed a reply on 8.7.2004. This reply was not accepted by the Department and it was found that though more than 12 years had elapsed no steps had been taken for implementation of the Project. The General Manager of the District Industries Center found that plot was lying vacant. The petitioner again made a request that he may be granted some time and on his request respondent No.3 sent a letter on 28.9.2004 informing him that he must bring his Unit into production within six months and pay a sum of Rs.30,240/- within one month failing which his plot would be cancelled.
5
Government of Himachal Pradesh sent a letter to the petitioner directing it to give details of its project. Similarly, respondent No.3 also sent a letter to the petitioner on 12.6.2006 directing it to give details of the Project. The petitioner applied for clearance of the Call Centre Project but on 3.8.2006 vide Annexure R-7, the petitioner was clearly informed that such a Call Centre Project could not be set up in the Industrial area of Shoghi and the petitioner could set up such a business enterprise somewhere else. He was also informed that if he did not utilize the leased plots for running an industrial unit, the allotment of the same could be cancelled and the plot resumed. The petitioner was informed of this fact on 3.8.2006. The petitioner has not made any reference about this letter in the writ petition and in fact has tried to mislead this Court by giving an impression that his proposal for setting up the Call Centre was still lying under consideration of the Government.
6
7
September 1, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allotment of industrial plot should be quashed and set aside after long non-utilization.
Whether the petitioner misled the Court by concealing a directive letter prohibiting non-industrial use.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief given the failure to set up an industry for two decades.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Jerath Electronics
State of H.P.
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
