Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Electrocom vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2015
WP-13287-2015
(M/S ELECTROCOM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
24-08-2015
Smt. Tulika Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthy learned Govt.Advocate for
respondent State.
Petition is directed against order No.124/ v?kkSfod@ch- /2-2006/03 Bhopal dated 6/1/2011 brought on record as Annexure P-5.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order was also subject matter of challenge in batch of Writ Petition Nos.3061/2011, 3062/2011, 3063/2011 3064/2011, 3065/2011, 3066/2011 and 3067/2011 wherein by order dated 10.8.2015, order dated 6.1.2011 has been set aside.
Copy of order passed in W.P.No.3061/2011 has been brought on record which is in following terms:
"Case of the petitioner is that since he was in the list, therefore, he deposited requisite stamp papers for execution of the lease deed and the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 02.03.2009 and possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 17.05.2009.The petitioner has set up his industrial unit on the plot allotted to him.Suddenly one fine morning the allotment was cancelled on the ground that the departmental authority violated the list by ignoring the persons who were placed above the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that despite notices, the persons who were above the petitioner did not come forward for the allotment of the land, therefore, an advertisement was published. Again there was no response and therefore, the authorities as per the list allotted the land to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the return filed by respondent no.7, Joint Director, wherein he has admitted that allotment of the land to the petitioner was in accordance with law. It is further stated that after the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, the persons who were above the petitioner have applied for allotment of the land and later on they were also allotted the land. The persons who were placed above the petitioner are impleaded as respondent no.5. Ms. Pallavi Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that she has no objection if the cancellation of allotment is set aside. Return has been filed on behalf of the State Government which is very cryptic and evasing stating that the allotment was cancelled by Commissioner of Industries. There was violation of the list On the contrary the respondent no.7 Joint Director has filed reply submitting that allotment was done as per rules and no persons senior to the petitioner has been ignored in the matter of allotment of plot in Govindpura, Bhopal.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is difficult to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner, cancelling the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of. The impugned order dated 06.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner Industries is hereby set-aside. There shall be no orders as to costs."
Though cavil is raised on behalf of State by learned Government Advocate, however, on perusal of impugned order and the order passed in W.P.No.3061/2011 , this Court is satisfied that impugned action and action taken against the other similar situated industrialist is of similar nature.
In view whereof, the present petition is also disposed of finally in above terms. In other words, order passed in W.P.No.3061/2011 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in present case also. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE