Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 743 (RAJ)

Uttam Distilleries Limited v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-03-29

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “A) Issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction to the RIICO to implement the decision of Cabinet and allowed the petitioner company to construct the distillery and Bottelling Plant, at plot no. SP-1, Sare-Khurdh, Bhiwadi District Alwar and commence its product. B) Issue a writ of Certiorari in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Impugned Order-I dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure-28), Impugned Order-II dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-30), Impugned Order-III dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32) and Impugned Order-IV dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34) passed by the Respondent. C) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” FACTS/BACKGROUND: 2. The brief and necessary facts of the case, as per the record, are as follows: i. The petitioner-company applied for permission to establish a Distillery, Brewery and Bottling Plant at RIICO, Bhiwadi, Unit-II, District Alwar (hereafter to be referred as “the Plant”). In pursuance thereof, No Objection Certificate (in short “NOC”) (Annexure-2) was granted by the Office of Excise Commissioner on 05.07.2004 on such terms and conditions specified therein. ii. Upon application of the petitioner for allotment of industrial land for setting up the Plant, the respondent vide letter of allotment dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-3) allotted Plot No. 1, measuring approximately 70,000 square meters, at RIICO Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Tehsil-Tijara, District Alwar (hereafter to be referred as “the plot”) for setting up the Plant. As per condition no. 3(a), balance 75% development charges was to be paid within 60 days. As per condition no. 4(b), construction activities were to be completed within a period of 2 years and production activities were to be started within a period of 3 years. As per condition no. 23, the allotment was liable to be cancelled automatically if the amount as stated in para 3(a) is not paid or if the construction/production is not started within the prescribed time or if there is any breach of any conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. iii. The petitioner was handed over the possession of the plot on 10.09.2004 (Annexure-4). iv. Vide letter no. U/(5)II/3298 dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was allowed to deposit the balance 75% of development charges along with applicable interest in seven quarterly installments. iii. The petitioner was handed over the possession of the plot on 10.09.2004 (Annexure-4). iv. Vide letter no. U/(5)II/3298 dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was allowed to deposit the balance 75% of development charges along with applicable interest in seven quarterly installments. v. The lease deed was executed on 29.10.2004 (Annexure-6). The lease deed specified that the petitioner-company was required to commence commercial production within a period of five years. vi. Vide letter dated 10.03.2007 (Annexure-14), petitioner-company sought extension of time for construction till 2009 and commencement of production by 2010 averring that the area was semi-developed and since the respondent failed to construct the approach road in time, construction was delayed. vii. Show cause notice (in short “SCN”) dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-16) issued to the petitioner by the respondent alleging non-compliance of condition no. 3(a), 2(d) etc. of the allotment letter/lease deed. viii. The petitioner-company replied to the SCN vide letter dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure-17) ix. The respondent issued a letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18) asking the petitioner-company to submit the time frame within which the construction was going to be completed and also directed petitioner-company to deposit the last installment of Development Charges along with interest (amounting to approximately Rs. 17.58 lakhs) by 31.07.2008. x. The petitioner-company sent another letter to the respondents on 31.10.2008 reiterating that construction could not be completed due to lack of approach road and pendency of PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. xi. As the PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) pertained to policy decision of the government, the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2009 with liberty to the PIL petitioner therein to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievance. The concerned authorities of the State Government were directed to dispose of the representation after hearing all the concerned parties. xii. On 08.05.2009 the petitioner-company also wrote a letter (Annexure-23) to the Excise Department stating that it had incurred expenditure of approximately Rs. 2.36 crore on land & building and another Rs. 21.71 crores (approximately) qua plant & machinery, fabrication and raw material and thereby praying that the petitioner-company be allowed to proceed with the project at the earliest. xiii. The petitioner-company sent another letter dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure-24) to the respondents requesting further time to make the payment of due amount by 30.09.2009. xiv. 21.71 crores (approximately) qua plant & machinery, fabrication and raw material and thereby praying that the petitioner-company be allowed to proceed with the project at the earliest. xiii. The petitioner-company sent another letter dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure-24) to the respondents requesting further time to make the payment of due amount by 30.09.2009. xiv. In furtherance of order dated 21.01.2009 in PIL/D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006, the Deputy Secretary of Excise Department of Government of Rajasthan issued a letter dated 08/15.10.2009 (Annexure-25) stating that the State Cabinet took a decision on 31.08.2009 and recommended that the petitioner-company be allowed to construct and operate distillery considering that the petitioner-company has incurred huge sum of Rs. 2.63 crores in the land and building. xv. The respondents issued another SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26) alleging breach of conditions of allotment letter dated 19.10.2004 as the petitioner-company had failed to deposit the dues of Development Charges and had also failed to complete construction and commence production within time. xvi. The petitioner-company filed their reply to the SCN vide letter 18.03.2010 and enclosed with the letter was demand draft of Rs. 17.58 lakhs, as dues of development charges. xvii. Vide impugned order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28), the respondents cancelled the allotment of the industrial plot made in favour of the petitioner and also terminated the lease deed with immediate effect in pursuance to SCN dated 18.02.2010. The demand draft of Rs 17.58 lakhs was also returned back. xviii. The petitioner-company made a representation dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure-29) to the Chairman of RIICO and requested him to withdraw the cancellation order and allow the petitioner-company 12 months of time to commence production. xix. Vide impugned order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-30), it was ordered that the petitioner’s request for restoration of the plot can be accepted subject to the condition that the petitioner-company deposits Restoration Charges, Retention Charges and other charges/dues totaling to approximately Rs. 2.26 crores by 15.07.2010. xx. The petitioner-company sent another letter dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure-31) to the respondents praying for withdrawal of cancellation order and for waiving off the charges imposed via Annexure 30 and further sought extension of one year for implementation of the project. xxi. Vide impugned order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32), the request of the petitioner-company made in Annexure-31 was rejected and it was stated that the petitioner-company’s appeal against the cancellation of lease deed dated 07.09.2010 was dismissed. xxi. Vide impugned order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32), the request of the petitioner-company made in Annexure-31 was rejected and it was stated that the petitioner-company’s appeal against the cancellation of lease deed dated 07.09.2010 was dismissed. Further, the petitioner-company was granted time until 30.09.2010 to deposit the charges imposed vide Annexure-30. xxii. The respondents issued another letter dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure-33), by which the time granted vide Annexure-32 for deposition of charges and dues was further extended till 31.10.2010. xxiii. Vide impugned order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), the respondent directed the petitioner-company to hand over the possession of the plot to the respondent within 7 days. It was specifically stated in the order that upon failure to do so within 7 days, the plot would be deemed to have been taken into the possession by the respondent. xxiv. Against the impugned orders, the present petition was filed in December of 2010 and an interim ex-parte stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner-company on 24.12.2010, directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the plot in question. xxv. Application for vacation of stay order dated 24.12.2010, under Article 226(3) of Constitution of India, was filed by the respondents on 04.02.2021. xxvi. The application for vacation of stay was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2021. xxvii. When the matter was listed for final disposal on 30.01.2023, both the sides argued that the possession of the disputed land rests with them. The actual status of the construction and the amount spent thereupon was also disputed. Therefore, to determine the correct factual matrix, this Court appointed a Commissioner on 30.01.2023 to inspect the land in question and to prepare a report accordingly. xxviii. In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner’s report was submitted on 01.02.2023. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, pleads doctrine of frustration and act of impossibility as the ground of defense for non-compliance of conditions of allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 and lease deed dated 29.10.2004. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-company, being part of Uttam Group which pioneered in establishing state of the art sugar mills across the world, with a view to diversify its business, decided to establish an eco-friendly grain based distillery and bottling plant in the State of Rajasthan. Accordingly, after obtaining NOC from the Office of Excise Commissioner, the petitioner-company applied for and was allotted the plot in question for establishing the Plant. Accordingly, after obtaining NOC from the Office of Excise Commissioner, the petitioner-company applied for and was allotted the plot in question for establishing the Plant. The terms of the allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 required the petitioner-company to erect such construction so as to cover atleast 20% of the plot area with built up pucca structure and roof. The relevant condition 4(b) is reproduced below: “The construction activities must be completed within a period of two years from the date of possession or from the date of execution of the lease deed, whichever is earlier, and production activities must started within three years from the date of possession or from the date of execution of lease deed whichever is earlier. For this purpose, the construction would mean covering of at lease 20% of the plot area with a built up pucca structure & roof” Further, the lease deed dated 29.10.2004 stipulated that the petitioner-company was required to commence commercial production within 5 years. The relevant condition 2(d) is reproduced below: “That the Lessee will erect the industrial unit on the demised premises in accordance with the site plan and will complete construction of main production shed and start commercial production within the period of five years from the date of these presents or from the date of possession, whichever be earlier or within such extended period as may be allowed by the lessor in writing at its discretion on payment of retention charges or otherwise. Provided that unutilised land of the allotted plot or plots shall revert to the lessor on expiry of the prescribed/extended period for starting production/expansion of the unit.” Learned counsel submits that in the allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 itself it was stated that the area in which the plot is situated was ‘semi-developed’ and therefore the respondents were obligated to provide adequate infrastructure for movement of men, material and machinery, ensuring performance of contract. However, due to lack of approach road, the material and machinery for civil construction could not be transported/supplied at the plot. However, due to lack of approach road, the material and machinery for civil construction could not be transported/supplied at the plot. The petitioner-company sent repeated letters to the respondents communicating the difficulty faced by the petitioner-company due to lack of approach road and it was clearly stated that the construction process could not be carried out due to lack of proper infrastructure and that the delay in construction was not on account of any fault of the petitioner-company; rather the delay was adversely affecting the petitioner-company due to escalating input cost incurred by the petitioner company. The respondent finally acknowledged the issues and gave the contract for building of approach road to a third party contractor on 25.11.2005 and the proposed date of completion of said road was 12.09.2006, but the approach road was actually constructed only by March of 2007. As soon as the approach road was constructed, the petitioner-company sent a letter dated 10.03.2007 expressing that since the delay in construction was on account of failure of respondents in providing proper infrastructure, the deadline for construction be extended till 2009 and the deadline for commencement be extended till 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the petitioner-company was required to obtain several permissions from different departments of the state before initiating construction. The details of the approvals are as follows: i. General Public and D.M’s office: approval received in June-July 2005; ii. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board: approval received on 05.05.2006 and duly amended as per project details on 13.07.2006; iii. Central Ground Water Authority: approval received on 10.04.2006; iv. Ministry of Environment & Forest: approval received on 13.04.2007 It is submitted that this procedure was extremely time consuming and tedious and as the final approval was only received by April of 2007, the petitioner-company was prevented from constructing on the plot before that. 5. Learned counsel further submits that in 2006, a PIL was filed before this Court (being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) challenging the establishment of distilleries, breweries including that of the petitioner-company wherein some interim orders were passed. It is submitted that the pendency of this PIL put the entire project work of the petitioner-company on hold. The PIL was finally dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2009 (and the interim orders were vacated), however with liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the State Government for redressal of their grievance. It is submitted that the pendency of this PIL put the entire project work of the petitioner-company on hold. The PIL was finally dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2009 (and the interim orders were vacated), however with liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the State Government for redressal of their grievance. In pursuance to the said liberty, the petitioner therein submitted its representation on 06.02.2009 and the petitioner-company (respondent no. 10 in the PIL) was asked to file its reply to the representation. The said reply was filed on 23.04.2009 and after consideration of petitioner-company’s reply, the State Cabinet took a decision on 31.08.2009, which was communicated vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009 issued by Deputy Secretary/Upshasan Sachiv (Annexure-25), and recommended that the petitioner-company be allowed to commence production. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that despite the fact that the delay in construction was in view of: i. Respondent’s failure to construct approach road; ii. Delay in getting approval from various departments of the State; iii. Pendency of PIL before this Court, which had threatened the very project and came to be dismissed only on 21.01.2009; iv. Pendency of PIL petitioner’s representation before the State Government which came to be decided only on 31.08.2009; the respondents issued SCN dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-16) and subsequent SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26), that too after accepting the explanation given by the petitioner-company in pursuance to SCN dated 04.12.2007 vide their letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18) and despite of directions of State Government issued vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009 (Annexure 25). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the petitioner-company made several request to the respondents to furnish details of calculation of last installment enabling the petitioner to make the final payment but all such requests fell on deaf ears. The petitioner-company expressed its willingness to pay all applicable remaining outstanding amounts, which is apparent from the petitioner-company’s letters dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure-17), 31.10.2008 (Annexure-19) and 30.09.2009 (Annexure-24). Though the petitioner-company never received any details from the respondents, to put the controversy at rest, the petitioner-company submitted a demand draft of Rs. 17.58 lakhs to the respondents on 17.02.2010 as payment of final installment and interest. However, for no valid reason, the respondents vide its completely arbitrary and non-speaking impugned order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28) returned the demand draft of the petitioner, terminated the lease deed and asked for handing over the possession of the plot. 17.58 lakhs to the respondents on 17.02.2010 as payment of final installment and interest. However, for no valid reason, the respondents vide its completely arbitrary and non-speaking impugned order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28) returned the demand draft of the petitioner, terminated the lease deed and asked for handing over the possession of the plot. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner-company kept requesting the respondent to furnish the details of outstanding amount but the respondent never intimated the same, and therefore the respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the petitioner-company wrote another letter dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure-29) to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28). In pursuance thereof, the respondent vide impugned order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-30) informed the petitioner-company that it had decided to restore the allotment and lease deed on the condition that the petitioner pays the due amount of approximately Rs. 2.26 crores, including restoration charges of approximately Rs. 1.62 crores and retention charges of approximately Rs. 42.04 lakhs. Learned counsel contends that since the cancellation of allotment itself was arbitrary, mala fide and illegal, the respondent cannot impose excessive amount of restoration and retention charges, which in the present case are almost twice the value of consideration paid for the land in question. Learned counsel further contends that as per the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (in short “Rules of 1979”), retention charges could only be imposed where an allottee seeks extension of time owing to its own inability in complying with the time schedule. The Rules of 1979 do not envisage retention charges where the allotting authority fails to perform its obligation because of which the allotee’s efforts of timely compliance gets frustrated. The Rules of 1979 also do not envisage retention charges where the delay in completion is owing to reasons beyond allotte’s control, such as pendency of proceedings before a Court of Law, as envisaged under Rule 23D-1 of Rules of 1979. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the petitioner-company protested against the levy of illegal restoration and retention charges, but the respondents did not accept the request/appeal of the petitioner-company and vide impugned order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32) directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of approximately Rs. 2.26 crores before 30.09.2010 so that allotment of plot can be restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the petitioner-company protested against the levy of illegal restoration and retention charges, but the respondents did not accept the request/appeal of the petitioner-company and vide impugned order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-32) directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of approximately Rs. 2.26 crores before 30.09.2010 so that allotment of plot can be restored. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), by merely stating that the petitioner-company’s response was not considered ‘convincing’, the respondents terminated the allotment and the lease deed and directed petitioner-company to surrender the possession of the plot within 7 days. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company have relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgments of Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Designated Authority & Ors. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 368; S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 ; Unitech Limited & Ors. vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 99; Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. CG Power & Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15 to submit that judicial review in contractual disputes with State or its instrumentalities is permissible, especially when actions of State or its instrumentalities are arbitrary or unfair. 11. Learned counsel has also relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Energy Watchdog and Ors. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 80 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs. Vedanta Limited and Ors. [O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020 and I.As. 3696-3697/2020; decided on 29.05.2020] in support of his contention that the petitioner-company cannot be held responsible for any delay for which the petitioner-company is not responsible. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present matter pertains to a simpliciter contractual dispute in which the petitioner-company has failed to honor the conditions of the allotment letter and lease deed and are now trying to hide the shortcomings on their part by giving it a color of ‘act of impossibility’. Learned counsel submits that there was no lack of adequate infrastructure, as alleged by the petitioner-company. At the time of allotment, complete and duly constructed roads were available in the Industrial Area and the alleged “approach road” was not part of the land acquired for RIICO. Learned counsel submits that there was no lack of adequate infrastructure, as alleged by the petitioner-company. At the time of allotment, complete and duly constructed roads were available in the Industrial Area and the alleged “approach road” was not part of the land acquired for RIICO. Despite that, on the request of the petitioner-company, the condition of the said road was improved. However, to assert that construction could not be completed due to lack of “approach road” is wholly fallacious. It is submitted that the adjacent entrepreneur M/s. Winsom Breweries (at Plot No. SPL-2) not only completed construction but also started commercial production in the year 2000. Similarly, several other plots were also under construction and therefore the contention of the petitioner with regard to lack of “approach road”, on the face of it, is flawed and illusionary. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner-company has not brought on record copy of any of the purported interim orders, passed by this Court in the PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205/2006) in which the petitioner-company itself was a party-respondent, which prevented the petitioner-company from proceeding with the construction. No such interim orders were ever produced before the respondents in all of the communications forwarded by the petitioner-company. Learned counsel contends that an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the petitioner-company in this regard. Learned counsel further contends that in absence of stay order, Rule 23D-1 of the Rules of 1979 is not attracted. 14. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner-company has not approached this Court with clean hands and has not disclosed the true and correct facts. Vide order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18), in pursuance to the SCN dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-16), the petitioner-company was given time till 31.07.2008 to deposit the outstanding amount of approximately Rs. 17.58 lakhs, failing which appropriate actions were proposed to be initiated. Undisputedly, the petitioner-company did not deposit the said amount in time. The outstanding amount was only attempted to be deposited by way of Demand Draft No. 121303 after issuance of second SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26). It has been the contention of the petitioner-company that they made several attempts to seek details of calculation of due amount, even when the petitioner-company was well aware of the same. The outstanding amount was only attempted to be deposited by way of Demand Draft No. 121303 after issuance of second SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26). It has been the contention of the petitioner-company that they made several attempts to seek details of calculation of due amount, even when the petitioner-company was well aware of the same. However, the petitioner-company has concealed the fact of their financial hardship before this Court and have attempted to disguise the same by shifting the burden on the respondents by alleging that the respondent did not supply the details of the outstanding dues. The order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18) and the Demand Draft No. 121303 of Rs. 17.58 lakhs makes it more than clear that petitioner-company was well aware about the dues and despite that, chose not to comply with the order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18), thereby necessitating further action. The fact that petitioner-company tried to conceal their financial hardship is evident from their letter dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure-35) wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner-company is in financial crunch and constraint due to critical scenario of the Sugar industry in the last 3-4 years. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the petitioner-company failed to deposit the outstanding amount in time due to the financial difficulties faced by them and not for any other reason and by suppressing the same, the petitioner-company has not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore no equity should be granted in favour of the petitioner-company. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that after cancellation of allotment and lease deed, vide order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28), the petitioner-company was given yet another chance to restore the allotment vide order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-30), subject to payment of valid and lawful charges including that of restoration charges and retention charges, which were levied as per the Rules of 1979 since the petitioner-company had failed to abide by the terms of the allotment and lease deed, thereby hampering the development of the entire industrial area. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the initial allotment, made in the year 2004, the price of the land in the industrial area has skyrocketed. The plot in question is worth well over Rs. 80 crores at present, compared to about Rs. 1.12 crores at the time of allotment. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the initial allotment, made in the year 2004, the price of the land in the industrial area has skyrocketed. The plot in question is worth well over Rs. 80 crores at present, compared to about Rs. 1.12 crores at the time of allotment. The purpose of allotment of land at concessional rates was to develop the industrial area, and for this exact reason the allotment was conditional, but with complete disregard to that, the petitioner-company has been treating the plot in question as its personal investment, which is impermissible. Furthermore, as per order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), the petitioner-company was required to surrender the possession of the plot to the respondents within 7 days and when the petitioner-company failure to do so, the possession of the plot was assumed by the respondent and till date rests with respondent in a de facto manner. The petitioner-company even secured the ex-parte interim stay by giving the false impression to the Court as at the relevant time, by virtue of order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), the de facto possession of the plot in question was with respondent. 17. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner-company have not only attempted to defraud this Court, but have also been successful in defrauding the State Cabinet. As per the petitioner-company’s letter dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure-23) addressed to the District Excise Officer, it was stated that the petitioner-company have incurred huge cost of Rs. 2.36 crores in Land & Building and another Rs. 21.71 crores in Plant & Machinery, Fabrication and Electrical advances. Relying upon the claim of the petitioner-company, the State Cabinet took a decision on 31.08.2009 which was published vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009 (Annexure-25) by the Deputy Secretary/Upshasan Sachiv, wherein it was directed that the petitioner-company be allowed to proceed with the proposed project, considering that the petitioner-company had incurred huge cost of about Rs. 2.63 crores in land and building. Learned counsel has relied upon the Commissioner’s report dated 01.02.2023 to submit that apart from a few half erect pillars and an old rotten boundary, there is no sign of any construction in the plot. It has been the contention of the petitioner-company that they incurred a huge sum of Rs. 2.36 crores in land and building, but they have not produced any document/evidence to substantiate such claim. It has been the contention of the petitioner-company that they incurred a huge sum of Rs. 2.36 crores in land and building, but they have not produced any document/evidence to substantiate such claim. The commissioner’s report clearly does not support the contention of the petitioner-company, nor is there anything on record to support the contentions of the petitioner-company. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 18. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 19. The primary issue which requires consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner-company was prevented from abiding by the terms of the allotment letter and lease deed for reasons beyond its control. In other words, does the contention of the petitioner-company that delay was on account of force majeure merits acceptance? 20. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the plot in question was allotted to the petitioner-company at a concessional rate for a specific purpose under such terms and conditions as contained in the allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-3) and lease deed dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure-6). The time bound allotment, at such concessional rates and at that particular point of time, was done with a view to accelerate the industrial development of the area. It is also required to be noted that the allotment of the plot was for establishing a Distillery, Brewery and Bottling Plant, which would be regarded as res extra commercium as per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1995) 1 SCC 574 . 21. The petitioner-company consciously accepted the terms of the allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-3), lease deed dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure-6), and letter dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure-5) with open eyes. As per the terms contained therein, the petitioner-company was required to: i. complete construction within a period of two years; ii. commence commercial production within a period of five years; iii. deposit the balance amount of 75% developmental charges along with applicable interest in seven installments by 30.06.2006. 22. The petitioner-company has contended that the delay was not on account of any fault of the petitioner-company, but was on account of: i. lack of approach road/access road; ii. pendency of PIL and representation before State Government; iii. delay in getting the environmental clearance. This Court will now deal with each of these contentions individually. 23. 22. The petitioner-company has contended that the delay was not on account of any fault of the petitioner-company, but was on account of: i. lack of approach road/access road; ii. pendency of PIL and representation before State Government; iii. delay in getting the environmental clearance. This Court will now deal with each of these contentions individually. 23. The contention of the petitioner that construction was delayed due to lack of approach road, which affected movement of raw material, manpower, plant and machinery, gets negated once it is established that M/s Winsom Breweries not only completed construction but also started commercial production at the adjacent plot, i.e. SPL-2 way back in the year 2002. What is noteworthy is that M/s Winsom Breweries was also engaged in similar business that the petitioner-company was supposed to establish. Therefore, once it is established that similarly situated person not only completed construction activities but also started commercial production (thereby generating revenue) at the adjacent plot, it cannot be said that the approach road somehow affected the construction activities. The argument of the petitioner-company qua lack of approach road is, therefore, untenable and merely an excuse/afterthought/defence with no foundation. 24. The next contention of the petitioner-company is with regard to pendency of PIL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6205 of 2006). Though the petitioner-company was a party-respondent in the said PIL, the petitioner-company has failed to produce copy of any of the purported interim orders of the Court which adversely affected the petitioner-company or prevented the petitioner-company from abiding by the terms of the allotment letter. Rather the PIL was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2009 with liberty to the PIL-petitioner to approach State Government by way of representation. The reply to the representation was filed by the petitioner-company on 23.04.2009 (Annexure-22), wherein it was stated that petitioner-company have already obtained all the necessary permissions/NOCs. The petitioner-company also wrote a letter addressed to the District Excise Officer dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure-23) averring that since the petitioner-company had already incurred cost of about Rs. 2.36 crores in land & building and another Rs. 21.71 crores in plant & machinery, the petitioner-company be permitted to proceed with the proposed plant/project at the earliest. The petitioner-company also wrote a letter addressed to the District Excise Officer dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure-23) averring that since the petitioner-company had already incurred cost of about Rs. 2.36 crores in land & building and another Rs. 21.71 crores in plant & machinery, the petitioner-company be permitted to proceed with the proposed plant/project at the earliest. Relying upon the letters dated 23.04.2009 (Annexure-22), and 08.05.2009 (Annexure-23), without verifying the authenticity of the claims of the petitioner, the State Cabinet took a decision on 31.08.2009 which was communicated vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009, issued by Deputy Secretary/Upshasan Sachiv (Annexure-25) and it was recommended that the petitioner-company be allowed to commence the project. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that though the petitioner-company has asserted on spending huge sum of money on land and construction, they have utterly failed to produce any document/evidence to substantiate these claims. Despite of specific query of this Court, the cost/expenditure as claimed is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The relevant balance sheets, profit and loss statements or certificate of Chartered Accountant were never brought forward. It was specifically stated, without adducing any document/evidence, that the petitioner-company have spent about Rs 2.36 crores in land and building and Rs. 21.71 crores in fabrication plant and equipment. However, the Commissioner’s site report dated 31.01.2023 revealed the true position. The land is still vacant with little to no construction; not even a single room is constructed. The boundary so constructed is also broken at several places. Rather, the land has been left to rot and has also been encroached upon by unidentified strangers. Upon consideration of the site report dated 31.01.2023 juxtaposed to the petitioner-company’s submission qua expenditure on land & building and plant & machinery, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner-company has attempted to deceive this Court by hugely exaggerating, if not out-rightly lying, about the amount of money spent on land & building and plant & machinery. It is also clear that the petitioner-company has deceived the State Cabinet with the same unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims. Considering the same and considering that there were no adverse order in the PIL, the contention of the petitioner-company that delay was on account of civil litigation is also untenable. 25. The next contention of the petitioner-company is delay in getting the requisite permissions/NOCs. Considering the same and considering that there were no adverse order in the PIL, the contention of the petitioner-company that delay was on account of civil litigation is also untenable. 25. The next contention of the petitioner-company is delay in getting the requisite permissions/NOCs. Admittedly, all the requisite permissions were granted to the petitioner-company by April of 2007, whereas the first SCN was only issued on 04.12.2007 (Annexure-16). After considering the reply of the petitioner-company dated 03.01.2008, the respondent issued the letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18), the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: ^^fo"k;%& vkS|ksfxd {ks= lkjs [kqnZ esa Hkw[k.M la[;k ,lih&A esa fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq le;c) dk;ZØe izLrqr djus gsrqA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr vkids vkosnu fnukad 3-01-08 ds Øe esa ys[k gS fd vki mDr Hkw[k.M ij fuekZ.k dke iw.kZ djus gsrq layXu izi= esa viuk le;c) dk;ZØe izLrqr djsa lkFk gh fodkl 'kqYd o C;kt dh 1758081 &jkf'k 31-07-08 rd vko';d :i ls tek djkos vlQy jgus ij iwoZ esa tkjh dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl fnukad 4-12-07 ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA^^ One important aspect which has to be kept in mind is that apart from completing construction and commencing production within the stipulated time period, the petitioner-company was also required to pay the balance 75% of development charges along with applicable interest in seven installments by 30.06.2006. The seventh and final installment of Rs. 17.58 lakhs became due on 30.06.2006. Vide letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18), after considering the petitioner’s reply to SCN dated 04.12.2007, the respondent specifically directed the petitioner company to deposit the last installment of Rs. 17.58 lakhs by 31.07.2008. Despite that, the petitioner-company did not deposit the last installment in time. Even if the argument of the petitioner-company about delay in construction is assumed to be correct, there is no justification whatsoever for default in payment of last installment. The contention of the petitioner-company that they attempted to deposit the last installment in time, but were not supplied with the necessary calculation by the respondent does not merit acceptance for the reason that the letter dated 31.07.2008 (Annexure-18) was absolutely clear and unambiguous and the due amount, i.e. Rs. 17.58 lakhs, was duly reflected. The contention of the petitioner-company that they attempted to deposit the last installment in time, but were not supplied with the necessary calculation by the respondent does not merit acceptance for the reason that the letter dated 31.07.2008 (Annexure-18) was absolutely clear and unambiguous and the due amount, i.e. Rs. 17.58 lakhs, was duly reflected. And it is undisputed that after the said letter, despite the petitioner-company asking the respondents to supply calculation of dues, the respondent did not issue any communication specifying the due amount again; yet the petitioner-company prepared the demand draft of the exact same amount and attempted to deposit it only after the second SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26) was issued. Furthermore, the petitioner-company have even tried to misrepresent the facts as it is pleaded in para 35 of the writ petition that the demand draft was submitted on 17.02.2010, i.e. before issuance of SCN 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26), whereas the respondent’s letter dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28) reflects that the demand draft was only submitted by the petitioner-company vide their letter dated 18.03.2010. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner-company that delay in getting the required permissions/NOCs resulted in default of payment, is also untenable. 26. The development of industrial areas was part of the state’s overall project for promoting industries and growth of its economy, with the objective of generating revenue and of providing livelihood. The respondent-RIICO, therefore, correctly contends that the stipulation in the allotment letter/lease deed, requiring the petitioner-company to construct their industrial unit and commence production in a timely manner was essential. After having analyzed the contentions of the petitioner-company, it is found that the same are completely baseless and unfounded. Once it is established that the petitioner-company failed to abide by the terms of the time bound allotment letter dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-3) and lease deed dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure-6) and defaulted in payment of the last installment, the inevitable consequence would be cancellation of allotment. The petitioner-company not only failed to complete the construction in time, but also defaulted in payment of last installment, despite of specific directions issued vide letter dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-18). In these circumstances, the conclusion which this Court is compelled to draw is that the petitioner-company was always insincere and perhaps never intended to follow up and set up the industrial project on the basis of which the land was allotted to it. In these circumstances, the conclusion which this Court is compelled to draw is that the petitioner-company was always insincere and perhaps never intended to follow up and set up the industrial project on the basis of which the land was allotted to it. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of noncompliance of mandatory conditions of allotment letter and lease deed and for default in payment of last installment. 27. It is a well settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must also do equity. It is equally well settled that one who seeks to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts must come with not just clean hands, but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective, as these are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. A litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, including Tilokchand H.B. Motichand and Ors. vs. Munshi and Anr.: (1969) 1 SCC 110 ; A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Anr.: (2012) 6 SCC 430 ; Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma: (1995) 1 SCC 421 ; Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2011) 6 SCC 145 ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anr.: (2011) 7 SCC 639 ; Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and Anr.: (2011) 3 SCC 287 ; Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: (2013) 2 SCC 398 ; K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.: (2008) 12 SCC 481; Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2011) 7 SCC 69 ; Ramjas Foundation and Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2010) 14 SCC 38 ; Anil Bansal vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Ors.: (2005) 9 SCC 368 ; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.: (1994) 1 SCC 1 ; A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.: (2007) 4 SCC 221 ; and K. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7550-7553 of 2021 decided on 08.12.2021). It has been the contention of the respondents that the petitioner-company has suppressed material facts and tried to play fraud upon the Court. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.: (2007) 4 SCC 221 ; and K. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7550-7553 of 2021 decided on 08.12.2021). It has been the contention of the respondents that the petitioner-company has suppressed material facts and tried to play fraud upon the Court. Therefore, this Court shall now deal with the question whether the petitioner-company is guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. 27.1. As already observed in para 25, the petitioner-company did try to misrepresent certain facts. As per the pleadings, specifically paragraph 35 of the writ petition, the demand draft of Rs. 17.58 lakhs was submitted on 17.02.2010. However, as per the respondent’s letter dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-28), the demand draft was given vide letter dated 18.03.2010, after issuance of SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26). The petitioner-company has also consciously chosen not to annex the letter dated 18.03.2010 authored by them in pursuance to the SCN dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-26). Therefore it is prima facie established that petitioner-company did misrepresent the facts. 27.2. The petitioner-company is also guilty of concealing the material fact of their financial hardship, which is apparent from their own letter dated 08.12.2010 addressed to the Hon’ble Minister, Industries and Excise of Government of Rajasthan (Annexure-35). The content of the said letter is reproduced below: “We wish to inform you that we have been allotted a Plot No. SP-1 in Industrial Area Sarekhurd, Bhiwadi, Alwar for setting up of a spirit complex (distillery and bottling plant). In pursuance to establish the said complex, we had obtained all the clearance like Forest & Environment, Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, and permission for withdrawal of ground water from Central Ground Water Authority and NOC from the Office of Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur in due course. We had also started construction work over plot No. SP-1 for setting up the spirit complex in due time and invested few cropes therein. We had also entered in some contracts for purchasing and erecting the plant and machineries in plot No. SP-1 Sarekhurd Industrial Area, subsequently the said plant and machineries had to be sent and erected in our sugar complex in the state of UP due to reasons mentioned below. We had also entered in some contracts for purchasing and erecting the plant and machineries in plot No. SP-1 Sarekhurd Industrial Area, subsequently the said plant and machineries had to be sent and erected in our sugar complex in the state of UP due to reasons mentioned below. Meanwhile an NGO, namely Tarun Bharat Sangh had filed a Public Interest litigation in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Hon’ble High Court had finally disposed of the said PIL on 21.01.2009 with direction to file representation before State Government to Petitioner and state Government should consider and disposed of the said representation after hearing all the concerned parties by a speaking order in accordance with law. The State Government after hearing all the parties had finally decided the issue on 8/15.10.2009 and directed the Commissioner, Excise Department Rajasthan, Udaipur to issue approval according to categories mentioned therein. Our project was also fall in the category-B and has also been entitled for issuance of permissions etc. Due to above said all the hurdles a reasonable time had lapsed. Since our company is also dealing in the business of manufacture of Sugar as well as Power in the state of Uttar Pradesh and Utrakhand had undergone financial crunch and constraint due to critical scenario of Sugar sector in last 3-4 years in the country. Due to aforesaid unavoidable circumstances, we could not establish and start our project in time till December, 2009. In January 2010, when we planned to start the project and intend to deposit our last installments payable payable to RIICO, against our said plot No. SP-1, the Regional Office, Bhiwadi had refused to accept our installment. But subsequently, they have accepted the Demand Draft of Sum of Rs. 1758081/- dated 30.01.10 bearing no. 121303. After that surprisingly in the month of April, 2010 we had received a letter dated 08.04.2010 from RIICO, Bhiwadi for cancellation of Allotment of Plot No. SP-1 and they had also returned our demand draft of sum of Rs.1758081/-. The letter dated 08.04.10 is also annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 for your kind perusal. 1758081/- dated 30.01.10 bearing no. 121303. After that surprisingly in the month of April, 2010 we had received a letter dated 08.04.2010 from RIICO, Bhiwadi for cancellation of Allotment of Plot No. SP-1 and they had also returned our demand draft of sum of Rs.1758081/-. The letter dated 08.04.10 is also annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 for your kind perusal. We had made a representation before Regional Officer and Managing Officer and Managing Director, RIICO for restoration of plot No.1 in our favour since we had not made any default in setting up of the industry in time, it were the conditions and circumstances that deprived us to establish the plant in time, hence our company ought not be punished for the acts of other such as Tarun Bharat Singh. Though, on 22.06.10, the RIICO had considered our representation partly and restored the plot No. SP-1 in our favour but imposed heavy penalties by way of Restoration & Retention Charges and asked us to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,97,232/-. We had time and again requested the RIICO officials to not to punish us for the act of others since it was these above mentioned circumstances which deprived us in establishing the plant in time. On 04.12.2010, we had received a further letter from Regional Officer, Bhiwadi, by which we have been asked to hand over the possession to RIICO in seven days of the issue of the said letter dated 19.11.2010, in case of failure the plot shall be deemed to have been taken into possession by the RIICO. The letter dated 19.11.2010 is also annexed herewith as Annexure-2 for your kind perusal. Sir, we are a renowned industry of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Uttrakhand, we are manufacturing the entire range of Sugar Plant Machineries and producing white crystal sugar and also generating Power and exporting to the state grid. We look forward for restoration of plot no. SP-1 in our favour without charging any Restoration and Retention charges etc. We are hopeful for grant to further 2 years time for setting up of an industry in the State of Rajasthan, by which the state exchequer will be benefited. Therefore, considering the facts enumerated above, you are requested to intervene in the matter and direct the authorities for restoration of the plot No.SP-1 in our favour without charging any Restoration and Retention charges etc. Therefore, considering the facts enumerated above, you are requested to intervene in the matter and direct the authorities for restoration of the plot No.SP-1 in our favour without charging any Restoration and Retention charges etc. and grant us a further 2 years time to establish a plant in the said plot No.SP-1. In the meanwhile it is requested that no proceeding be initiated for dispossession our company from the allotted plot No.SP-1. Further an opportunity be given to our company in the form of personal hearing before any such proceeding is initiated against the company for dispossession. We will be highly grateful to your good sell for your kind consideration. Emphasis supplied” In the said letter it is admitted by the petitioner-company that the primary reasons which resulted in default in payment of last installment as also the delay in commencing production and completing construction was due to financial crunch undergone by the petitioner-company in the last 3-4 years due to critical scenario of the sugar industry. The contents and reasons stated in the above quoted letter are not consistent with the pleadings of the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company have specifically pleaded that they made continuous request to the respondent seeking details/calculation of the last installment, but as discussed above, the petitioner-company was well aware of the dues of last installment but still chose not to deposit the same in time. 27.3. As already discussed in para 24, the petitioner-company has also not substantiated its claim of having spent about Rs. 2.36 crores in land & building and Rs. 21.71 crores in plant & machinery. Despite specific query put forth by this Court, no documents/evidence whatsoever was produced in support of their claim. As the mere word of the petitioner-company, without proof, cannot be considered as the gospel truth, this Court is constrained to draw adverse inference against the petitioner-company in this regard. This Court is further constrained to observe that using the same unsubstantiated, unfounded and exaggerated claims, the petitioner-company was also successful in defrauding the State Cabinet; who, believing that the petitioner-company had invested Rs. 2.63 crores in the project without verifying the same, directed that the petitioner-company be permitted to proceed with the proposed project vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009 (Annexure-25). 27.4. The ad-interim ex-parte stay order was passed on 24.12.2010 and it was directed that the petitioner-company shall not be dispossessed from the plot in question. 2.63 crores in the project without verifying the same, directed that the petitioner-company be permitted to proceed with the proposed project vide letter dated 08/15.10.2009 (Annexure-25). 27.4. The ad-interim ex-parte stay order was passed on 24.12.2010 and it was directed that the petitioner-company shall not be dispossessed from the plot in question. The said order was passed presuming that the possession of the plot was with the petitioner-company. However, as per the order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), the petitioner was directed to surrender the possession of the plot within seven days and upon its failure to do so, it was ordered that the deemed possession of the plot would be assumed by the respondent. The relevant portion of order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34) is extracted below: “You have further asked vide your letter 29.10.2010 to give extension of the time limit in the above matter without any commitment for deposition of dues and no time frame has been agreed for payment. Hence, your reply has not been considered convincing. You are therefore directed to handover the possession of plot within 7 days from the date of issue of this letter and take refundable amount from this office. In case of failure to handover the possession in time, the plot shall be deemed to have been taken into possession by the Corporation and amount shall be refunded as per rules of the corporation.” As per the order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-34), the de facto possession of the plot in question was assumed by the respondent on 27.11.2010 meaning there by that the petitioner-company was not even having the possession of the plot on 24.12.2010, when the ad-interim ex-parte stay order was passed. 28. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the facts are stark; the petitioner-company never made any genuine effort to start its unit. The inference which this Court is left to draw, is that the petitioner-company’s intention was perhaps never to set up any industrial unit, despite its promise to the contrary, and speculatively deal with the plot. The facts of the present case also leave no manner of doubt that petitioner-company has tried to play fraud upon the Court. Even the ad-interim ex-parte stay order was obtained by playing fraud. The petitioner-company cannot be allowed to escape the consequences of having concealed material facts from this Court. The facts of the present case also leave no manner of doubt that petitioner-company has tried to play fraud upon the Court. Even the ad-interim ex-parte stay order was obtained by playing fraud. The petitioner-company cannot be allowed to escape the consequences of having concealed material facts from this Court. Whether with the disclosure of material facts, the Court would have still granted the ad-interim ex-parte stay order or not is not relevant and cannot absolve the petitioner-company from the consequences of not making such disclosure of material facts. Such a practice, of approaching the Court with unclean hands and not disclosing material facts, not only has to be deprecated but must also be penalized. The petitioner-company, therefore, is saddled with cost of Rs. 20 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) which is to be deposited within a period of three months. Half of the cost imposed (i.e. Rs. 10 Lakhs) is to be deposited in the Litigants Welfare Fund and the other half (i.e. Rs. 10 Lakhs) is to be paid to the respondent RIICO. 29. Before proceeding further, it is also required to be noted that such a huge chunk of land in a fast growing industrial area is lying vacant since before 2004. The inaction of the petitioner-company has frustrated the objective of the policy under which the land was originally allotted. Respondent-RIICO, despite its might, had utterly failed to protect the State’s interest in the present case. Such inaction on part of respondent-RIICO, especially in commercial matters, adversely affects the state exchequer. Considering the indefensible delay on part of respondent-RIICO, it appears that some of the officers of respondent-RIICO were hand in glove with the petitioner company. Even the application for vacation of stay, under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, was filed after inexcusable delay of over a decade. It is also noteworthy that the respondent-RIICO, despite claiming possession of the plot in question, have allowed encroachment on the plot in question by unidentified strangers. In such circumstances, this Court directs competent authority of the respondent-RIICO to conduct appropriate inquires and issue charge sheets to the Incharge Legal Officer as well as other officer(s) involved in the handling of this case. Appropriate internal mechanism may also be worked out so that such situations are not repeated in the future and responsibility is also fixed. 30. In such circumstances, this Court directs competent authority of the respondent-RIICO to conduct appropriate inquires and issue charge sheets to the Incharge Legal Officer as well as other officer(s) involved in the handling of this case. Appropriate internal mechanism may also be worked out so that such situations are not repeated in the future and responsibility is also fixed. 30. A copy of this order be supplied in the office of Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan for information and so that appropriate steps are taken immediately. RESULT 31. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only). Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.