Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3277 (RAJ)

K. C. Merchantile Ltd. v. RIICO

2005-12-09

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Honble RATHORE, J.—The respondent-Corporation had published a brochure for industrial area set up by the RIICO. In the brochure, details of the industrial plots, development charges and other informations were also indicated. (2). The petitioner being interested to establish a milk processing unit having capacity of 1.0 lacs litres along with product to milk, ghee, chach etc. The petitioner want to establish second unit for manufacturing, fabricating and galvanizing towers used in power transmission, high mast lighting system, lighting poles and windmills etc. The petitioner is keenly interested to establish the aforesaid industries in Bagrana Industrial Area. As per the brochure, there were plots available at the price of Rs.1,00/- per Sqm. (3). The petitioner being interested applied for a plot in the Bagrana Industrial Area under the scheme of Tatkal Bhukhand Awantan Yojna (for short "TBAY Scheme"). The allotment was to be made on the principle of first in first out as per the circular dated 10.12.2001 issued by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted the demand draft of Rs.15 lacs. (4). The petitioner deposited the application form for allotment of two plots approximately 90,000/- Sq. Mtr. for their two prestigious projects at Bagrana Industrial Area. The required keenness amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was deposited through two pay orders No.216/08 and 216/09 dated 4.10.2004 for Rs.15 lacs each in favour of RIICO Ltd. in the office of the Senior Deputy General Manager, RIICO Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Industrial Area, Jaipur. (5). The controversy arise when the RIICO issued a letter on 4.12.2004 informing the petitioner that the management of the Corporation has decided to dispose of the industrial land of the industrial area Bagrana by way of auction inviting bids as per rule for which separate advertisement in news papers shall be given. The demand drafts deposited by the petitioner were also returned to the petitioner along with this letter with liberty to participate in the bid process for getting the plots in auction. (6). The letter dated 4.12.2004 and auction notice dated 9.12.2004 are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that RIICO cannot deviate from the scheme largely published through brochure issued on 30.9.2004. (7). (6). The letter dated 4.12.2004 and auction notice dated 9.12.2004 are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that RIICO cannot deviate from the scheme largely published through brochure issued on 30.9.2004. (7). Vide circular dated 10.12.2001, the respondent-Corporation issued a general guideline regarding maintenance of transparency in public dealing and the Corporation has decided that the principle of "first in first out (FIFO)" should be followed generally while dealing with the requests or the entrepreneurs and specially so in respect of the following activities, subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities by the applicants:- (i) Allotment of plots (except where plots are being auctioned as per policy of the Corporation). (ii) Refund of money on account of cancellation/surrender of plots. (iii) Water supply connections. (iv) Disposal of loan applications received by the Corporation for financial assistance. (v) Disbursement of term loan to the borrower units. (8). In the brochure also, it is categorically mentioned that in saturated industrial areas plots are allotted through auction or under Tatkal Bhukhand Awantan Yojna (TBAY). The petitioner being interested to get the plot allotted in his favour deposited the requisite amount with the RIICO, but the same was rejected without following the principle and guidelines regarding transparency in public dealing. (9). A circular was also issued by the respondent-Corporation regarding enlistment of applications in priority register and making changes of planning of industrial areas transparent. As per the priority register, the petitioner was first in applying for allotment of the plot in Bagrana Industrial Area and as per the principle of FIFO, he is eligible to get the plot allotted in his favour. (10). It is also categorically stated in Clause (b) of the circular dated 25.10.2002, that even before placing industrial area under category of saturated industrial areas, Unit heads may decide to auction the plot having locational advantage in area with a view to fetch better money. Such a decision should be taken in advance and before receiving applications for the plot and the same should be notified. In case of surrender/cancellation of plot having locational advantage the plot should be disposed of only by auction. (11). It was further made clear in Clause (c) that change of land use of open land and service land in industrial area, sub- division of plots before allotment etc. In case of surrender/cancellation of plot having locational advantage the plot should be disposed of only by auction. (11). It was further made clear in Clause (c) that change of land use of open land and service land in industrial area, sub- division of plots before allotment etc. should be made transparent by publishing the changes in newspaper meaning thereby in any case, the respondents want to change the criteria, they ought to have published the same and everybody ought to have notified by way of publication and notification. (12). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the plot in his favour as he has not applied in the performa as stipulated in the brochure and the procedure is mentioned in the brochure itself. The petitioner has not filled the prescribed performa and moved simple application for allotment. (13). Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that brochure gives a general glimpse with regard to the availability of the plots for industries and even the rates given are subject to change from time to time. To this effect, he referred a note mentioned in the brochure in Para No.l that plot allotment rates and position of vacant plot may vary as the time passes. In this regard, Mr. Bhandari further submits that looking to the value of the land, the petitioner showed their keenness for the allotment of the land @ Rs.135 per Sq. Mtr., but later on, the Infrastructure development Committee decided on 25.4.2005 to fix the rate at the rate of Rs.175 per Sq. Mtr. as minimum rate of development charges of allotment of land in industrial area Bagrana. The amount deposited by the petitioner has been refunded by the RIICO and RIICO decided on allot the land by way of auction. (14). The auction proceedings could not take place as the Government stayed the auction. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused and material available on record. (15). It is not dispute that the RIICO published the brochure updated upto 30.9.2004. As per the brochure, the industrial area situated in bagrana Industrial Area, Jaipur (South) City, three plots are available and Rs.100/- has been fixed per Sq.Mtr. (16). Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused and material available on record. (15). It is not dispute that the RIICO published the brochure updated upto 30.9.2004. As per the brochure, the industrial area situated in bagrana Industrial Area, Jaipur (South) City, three plots are available and Rs.100/- has been fixed per Sq.Mtr. (16). It is also not disputed that as per the scheme launched by the RIICO and published in the brochure, the plots are to be allotted under the TBAY Scheme. (17). Now the question arises whether the RIICO can change the policy contrary to the the circular issued from time to time. (18). vide order dated 4.12.2004, the Corporation communicated the decision that land of Industrial Area Bagrana will be disposed of by way of auction inviting bids as per rules. No doubt, the RIICO can take the decision, but such decision can only be taken in view of circular dated 25.10.2002 in advance and before receiving the applications for the plot. Such decisions should be notified as per Clause (c) of the circular dated 25.10.2002. Admittedly, no such decision has been taken in advance and has been notified by RIICO. (19). Further, as per circular dated 10.12.2001, it has been decided to maintain the transparency to allot the industrial plot on the principle of first in first out. As not disputed the petitioner first applied for allotment of plot in Bagrana Industrial Area, therefore, decision taken by the respondent Corporation and communicated through letter dated 4.12.2004 returning the application of the petitioner is per se contrary to the circulars issued by the respondent from time to time and also contrary to the scheme published in the brochure upto 30.9.2004. The petitioner is legally entitled to get the plot allotted in his favour. (20). Now the question arise for consideration is with regard to enhancement of rate. As per Note-I, the plot allotment rates and position of vacant plot may vary as the time passes. It is also evident by the publication made for inviting tenders that minimum rate was fixed at the rate of Rs.135/-per Sq.Mtr. Hence, the RIICO is entitled to charge Rs.135/- per Sq. Mtr. as development charges from the petitioner. (21). As per Note-I, the plot allotment rates and position of vacant plot may vary as the time passes. It is also evident by the publication made for inviting tenders that minimum rate was fixed at the rate of Rs.135/-per Sq.Mtr. Hence, the RIICO is entitled to charge Rs.135/- per Sq. Mtr. as development charges from the petitioner. (21). In view of the aforesaid discussion, the RIICO is directed to allot the plots to the petitioner as per the principle of first in first out as admittedly the petitioner applied first for allotment of plots in Bagrana Industrial Area, after charging Rs.1350/- per Sq. Mtr. as development charges. (22). The impugned letter dated 4.12.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.