M/S WIn Pack Pvt Ltd Vs. Vice Chaiman and Managing Director and 1 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13807 of 2011

=========================================================

M/S

WIN PACK PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)

Versus

VICE

CHAIMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)

=========================================================

Appearance

:
MR

DAKSHESH MEHTA for

Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -

2.
=========================================================

Date

: 04/10/2011

ORAL

ORDER

This

petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been

preferred with the following prayers:

“(A) Your

Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent

corporation to consider the representation dtd. 30.8.2010 and

31.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner;

(B) Your

Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction direction the respondent

Corporation to reallot the Plot Nos. 2011 and 2012 to the petitioner

in Chhatral GIDC Estate;

(C) Pending

admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your

Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent Corporation from

allotting the Plots Nos.2011 and 2012 in Chhatral GIDC Estate to any

other party;

(D) Pending

admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your

Lordships may be pleased to take the decision on the representations

dtd. 30.8.2010 and 31.12.2010 of the petitioner and to submit the

same before this Hon'ble Court;

(E) Be

pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just

and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the

case.”

Briefly

stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially

allotted Plot No.2010 in Chhatral GIDC Estate and has got possession

of the same. By Circular dated 03.06.1994, the respondent-Corporation

came out with the Scheme giving priority of allotment of the

adjoining plots with the basic price plus 10% premium. The petitioner

made an application for two adjoining plots, that is, Plots No.2011

and 2012. Upon payment of necessary charges, the physical possession

of the said plots was handed over to the petitioner on 26.03.1999.

However, as the Unit of the petitioner was facing financial

constraints, the petitioner – Company could not make the

payment of the next installments, therefore, the respondent –

Corporation took back the possession of Plots Nos.2011 and 2012, on

16.02.2000. The petitioner made an application for restoration of

possession of the said plots, showing his willingness to make payment

of the outstanding dues. However, the said application was not

decided by the respondent – Corporation. On 09.12.2009, the

respondent – Corporation issued a Circular clarifying that

after taking over possession of the plots, the Corporation was to

dispose of the same at the earliest but, if the said plots could not

be disposed of for five years, then the original allottee could make

an application for re-allotment after which it would be considered on

merits and re-allotment could be made. The date of the said Scheme

was extended upto 31.03.2010 and an advertisement to this effect was

published in the local newspapers. The petitioner made an application

on 30.03.2010 under the said Scheme, requesting for re-allotment of

Plots Nos.2011 and 2012. Along with the application, the petitioner

submitted a Demand Draft of RS.5,85,000/-, which has been credited to

the account of the respondent – Corporation. The grievance of

the petitioner is that neither has any decision been taken upon the

application made by the petitioner and nor have the plots in question

been re-allotted, even though similarly situated persons have been

re-allotted the plots, of which possession was taken from them

earlier.

At

the outset, Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner,

submits that the petitioner has made two representations on

30.08.2010 and 31.12.2010, but the same have not been considered by

the respondents. It is stated that the interest of justice would be

met if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to

the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, GIDC, who may be directed to

consider and decide the same within a time-bound period.

Upon

the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the

petitioner, the following order is passed:

If

the petitioner makes a representation to the Vice Chairman and

Managing Director of GIDC (respondent No.1), within a period of

fifteen days from today, the said respondent shall consider and

decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

The

petition is disposed of in the above terms without entering into the

merits of the case.

Direct

Service of this order is permitted.

(Smt.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.)

(sunil)