Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC13 Aug 2009WP/9744/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the cancellation proceedings and permitted the petitioner to submit a defect-free application for plan approval within three months. The Corporation was directed to sanction the plan within one month, and the petitioner undertook to complete industry establishment within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings were quashed. Petitioner allowed to submit application within 3 months. Corporation directed to approve within 1 month. Petitioner to establish industry in 1 year.

M/s. The Engineering Industries and Manufactures… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.9744 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. The Engineering Industries & Manufactures Assn. Rep. by its M.D. Shaik Allahbaksh Autonagar, Guntur.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, having its regd. office at Parishram Bhavan, Hyderabad-29 Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

¶11

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Lr. No. 410A/An/Gnt/Ph-I & II , dt. 25-4-2006 of the R2 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN

¶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, it is hereby prayed 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. 410-A/An/Gnt/Ph-I & II , dt. 25-4-2006 of the R2 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.”

¶20

The petitioner mainly pleaded that while it 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’). It 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 its readiness and willingness to establish the industry, provided reasonable time is given to it.

¶22

Having regard to this offer of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable it to file an affidavit giving undertaking to the above effect. Accordingly, a separate affidavit has been filed wherein it 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 it 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 it 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 it. 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 it 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 09.05.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.12355 of 2006 is dismissed.

¶33

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶34

13^th AUGUST, 2009.

¶35

kvni

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. The Engineering Industries and Manufactures v. 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

Sykam Kamalakar Rao Vs Sri v Venkata Panduranga Raju

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

P. Srimannarayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation