Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1259 (RAJ)

Zyden Gentec Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

2017-05-17

M.N.BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22nd December, 2016, whereby, a notice was given to the petitioner-company for cancellation of the allotment of plot due to violation of Condition No.5. The Condition No.5 directs for completion of work with commencement of production within a period of two years. The allotment of plot was made on 23rd February, 2007. The period of two years expired on 22nd March, 2009. 2. The record shows that after allotment of plot to the petitioner-company, possession was given on 5th April, 2007 followed by execution of lease deed on 4th May, 2007. The petitioner-company was then directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000/- for deforestation vide letter dated 16th June, 2007. It is for the reason that trees were existing on the plot. The petitioner-company paid the amount aforesaid through challan on 27th August, 2007. The District Collector then granted permission for deforestation on 14th September, 2007. The Additional District Collector called for the report of DFO, Kota about value of the trees existing on the plot. The report was submitted on 7th January, 2009 by the DFO, Kota. The deforestation thereupon took place and completed on 5th October, 2009. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner-company was not in a position to raise construction of the unit till 5th October, 2009. Their case was recommended for extension of the period by one year. It was GM, DIC vide his letter dated 18th December, 2009. It was sent to the Divisional Commissioner by the District Collector vide his letter dated 27th January, 2010. The Deputy Secretary (Revenue) asked the Divisional Commissioner to send a fresh proposal vide his letter dated 27th September, 2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-company commenced the production on 27th August, 2010 i.e. within a period of one year from deforestation of the plot. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is not a case where violation of Condition No.5 has been made by the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company complied the condition of completion of construction within a period of two years from the date plot was made for usable condition. It is also a fact that extension was recommended by none else but by GM, DIC but the Government remained silent for one or the other reason. The petitioner-company complied the condition of completion of construction within a period of two years from the date plot was made for usable condition. It is also a fact that extension was recommended by none else but by GM, DIC but the Government remained silent for one or the other reason. It is more so when proposal for extension was forwarded by the District Collector to the Divisional Commissioner and then to the Government. The Government could not take decision, rather, matter was remanded as period of one year had expired by the aforesaid time. In any case, it cannot be said to be a case of default of the petitioner-company. The circumstances explain that it was beyond their control to raise construction and commence production. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 22nd December, 2016 cannot be allowed to sustain and, accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner has not only constructed the unit but commenced the production. The respondent-State is thus directed to give N.O.C. within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The issue now remains about action of the Bank. The petitioner-company submitted that they will bring a buyer to purchase the unit. It would be on an amount sufficient to clear the existing dues of the Bank. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that earlier also a compromise was entered between the petitioner-company and the Bank. The petitioner-company could not bring the buyer. 7. I have considered the second aspect of the matter also. The petitioner-company has not disputed that payment is due towards bank loan and it has to be paid by them. The learned counsel for petitioner-company has stated to bring a buyer to purchase the unit. It would be on an amount to pay off the entire due amount as was settled in one time settlement. 8. The petitioner-company is given liberty to bring the buyer within a period of one month. If buyer is brought for purchase of unit on a matching or higher amount of the dues of the Bank, as was settled on 21st July, 2016 with updated interest apart from other charge as per one time settlement. If buyer is not brought within one month from today then Bank would be at liberty to proceed for recovery as per provisions of law. 9. If buyer is not brought within one month from today then Bank would be at liberty to proceed for recovery as per provisions of law. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.