Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S N.S. PACKAGING (P) LTD. & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S N.S. Packaging (P) Ltd. & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 20389 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7385 (23 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.29

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20389 of 2007

M/s. N.S. Packaging (P) Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.

State of U.P.  & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by respondent no.3 by which the petitioners' application for re-allotment of the premises in dispute has been rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that the premises in dispute has been allotted to the petitioners for industrial purpose in the year 1998 and the possession has also been handed over on 12.02.1998. However, the lease agreement was executed on 04.06.2003. The allotment has been cancelled by respondent no. 3 on 18.06.2004 on the ground that the unit had not been established on the land in dispute even after expiry of six years. It appears that the petitioners moved application dated 01.10.2004 before the respondent no.3 stating therein the reasons for non-construction of the unit and requested for the permission of the construction of the unit. The respondent no.3 vide letter dated 14.10.2004 asked the petitioners to move application for restoration of the lease within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The claim of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the letter dated 14.10.2004, the restoration application was filed vide letter dated 25.10.2004 which has been received in the office of the respondent no.3 on 26.10.2004. In the said letter, it was stated that the letter dated 14.10.2004 was received on 16.10.2004. The respondent by the impugned order dated 12th March, 2007 rejected the said application. It has also been brought to our notice that  the property in dispute has been re-allotted to respondent no.4 vide allotment letter dated 5th December, 2006.

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.P. Srivastava appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no.3 has illegally cancelled the application for restoration on the ground that the petitioners could not furnish the restoration application within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter No.5757 dated 14.10.2004. He submitted that the letter dated 14.10.2004 was received by the petitioners on 16.10.2004 and the restoration application was sent by First Flight Courier Ltd. On 25.10.2004, which was received in the office of respondent no.3 on 26.10.2004.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the action of the petitioners is not bona fide. He submitted that though the land was allotted in the year 1998 and possession was also handed over on 12.02.1998, the petitioners could not start the construction of the unit within the period stipulated in sub-clause (3)(e) and (3)(b) of the lease deed and, thus, has committed the breach of the provisions of the lease deed. Therefore, the lease deed has rightly been cancelled. He submitted that the petitioners have not moved any restoration application after the cancellation of the lease deed and have only sought permission for construction of the unit. He further submitted that even the petitioners after moving the restoration application in the year 2004, have not made any construction. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for restoration has been rightly rejected.

In our view, the petitioner has not acted bona-fidely. The land was allotted in the year 1998 to establish the unit with a view to increase industrialisation  but admittedly the petitioners have not establish the unit within the stipulated period prescribed under the lease deed and, thus, the lease agreement has rightly been cancelled by the respondents. Even after cancellation of the lease deed, the petitioners could not come forward moving any application for restoration. We do not see any provision under which the respondent no.3 could ask the petitioners to move the application for restoration. Even though the claim of the petitioners is that the application for restoration was moved in pursuance of the letter dated 14.10.2004 within 10 days but the petitioners have pursued it for another two years and have not taken any step for establishment of the new unit.

The copy of the lease deed or the possession letter has not been filed by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. It is not possible to find out as under sub-clause (3)(e) and 3(b) of the lease deed, what was the time during which the construction had to be completed.

Undoubtedly, the petitioners were handed over the possession of the land in dispute on 12.02.1998 and they did not raise any construction, whatsoever, during the period of six years and six months. No explanation worth the name has been furnished for not complying with the terms of the lease deed except that because of ailment of the wife of Shri Narendra Singh, the Director of the Company the construction could not be completed, which cannot be, in our humble opinion, a satisfactory explanation.

In the meantime, the land has been allotted to respondent no.4 on 05.12.2006. By virtue of the allotment letter dated 05.12.2006, the right of the respondent no.4 to use and enjoy the land vested on him. Thus, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by respondent no.3 inasmuch as the petitioners have not acted  bona-fidely. In the circumstances, we decline to exercise our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to grant any relief. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

23.04.2007

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.