Allowed

P. Srimannarayana v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Telangana HC13 Aug 2009WP/14749/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged unilateral cancellation of sale deed for late industry establishment. Court accepted petitioner's undertaking to establish industry within one year, quashed cancellation, and directed Corporation to approve plan within a month and petitioner to complete establishment. Court retained right to cancel allotment on default.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned proceedings; permitted application submission within 3 months; directed Corporation approval within 1 month; mandated industry completion within 1 year of approval.

P. Srimannarayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh Industrial… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.14749 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Srimannarayana S/o. Radhakrishnaiah R/o. D.No. 5-21-177, 2/9 Brodipeta, Auto Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, having its registered Office at Parishram Rep. by its Managing Director.

¶11

2 The Zonal Manager, APIIC Ltd., Industrial Estate, Vijayawada.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Lr.No. 1/B1.9/PH4/AN/GNT/05 dt. 1-7-2006 of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.PEDDA BABU

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents:MR.K.V.SIMHADRI

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶19

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Lr.No.1/B1.9/PH4/AN/GNT/05 dt. 1-7-2006 of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.”

¶20

The petitioner mainly pleaded that while he could not establish the industry within the time stipulated under the terms and conditions of allotment and agreement of sale, unilateral cancellation of sale deed is beyond the power and authority of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He further pleaded that in cases where allotments and sale deeds were cancelled, the Corporation itself is revoking the cancellation orders on the allottees/vendees paying certain amount towards purported penalties for the delay in establishment of industries.

¶21

After this case was heard at length, it was adjourned on the petitioner expressing his readiness and willingness to establish the industry, provided reasonable time is given to him.

¶22

Having regard to this offer of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable him to file an affidavit giving undertaking to the above effect. Accordingly, a separate affidavit has been filed wherein he has undertaken to establish the industry within a period of one year from the date of sanctioning of plan and giving necessary approval for establishment of an industry, by the Corporation. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein he has unequivocally

¶23

undertaken to establish the industry within the time limit of one year as stated above.

¶24

Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on specific instructions, submitted that the Corporation has no objection to the offer made by the petitioner and this Court may pass appropriate order to ensure that the petitioner shall stand on the undertaking given by him and complete establishment of industry within one year from the date of giving approval by the Corporation.

¶25

The fact that the plot is allotted to the petitioner for the specific purpose of establishment of industry as a part of scheme for promotion of industrial activity in the State is not in dispute. Therefore, public interest warrants that the purpose for which the allotment of plot is made is not frustrated. Either the petitioner should go ahead with the establishment of industry or give up the plot allotted to him. In view of the specific undertaking given by the petitioner as above, the necessity of this Court deciding various pleas raised by the petitioner touching the validity or otherwise of the cancellation of allotment, sale agreement and sale deed by the Corporation is obviated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, at the hearing, that his client would abide by the undertaking given by him in the affidavit, if the Corporation sanctions the plan and gives necessary approval within a reasonable time.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that if the petitioner submits necessary application in this regard, the Corporation will dispose of the same and give necessary approval, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application.

¶27

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶28

i. The impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶29

ii. The petitioner is permitted to submit an application for approval in complete shape and without any defect, within a period of three (3) months from today.

¶30

iii. Within one month from the date of receipt of such application, the Corporation shall give necessary approval/sanction for establishment of an industry. Within one year from the date of receipt of such approval/sanction from the Corporation, the petitioner shall complete establishment of industry, commence the activity and report the same to the Corporation.

¶31

iv. In the event of failure of the petitioner to comply with these directions, the Corporation is entitled to cancel the allotment and approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for cancellation of the sale deed. If suit in this regard is filed, the competent Civil Court shall dispose of the same within a period of six (6) months on such institution. The Corporation is also entitled to move appropriate application before this Court for passing order against the petitioner for violation of the undertaking.

¶32

As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 20.07.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.18376 of 2006 is dismissed.

¶33

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶34

13^th AUGUST, 2009.

¶35

kvni

P. Srimannarayana v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Srimannarayana v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

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

B Chengamma Vs Shri Venkateswara Rao

E Appa Rao Vs B Janardhan Reddy

M/s. Andhra Stainless Steel and Wire Products Vs The Commissioner of Industries

M/s. The Engineering Industries and Manufactures Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Sykam Kamalakar Rao Vs Sri v Venkata Panduranga Raju

Syed Ahmed Vs The a.P.I.I.C.Limited, having its registered office