Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Puravankara Projects. Ltd. And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh . on 16 September, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...... of 2015
CC No(s). 8770/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/01/2015
in WAMP No. 1906/2014,05/03/2013 in WA No. 1407/2012,30/01/2015 in
WA No. 1407/2012 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At
Hyderabad)
M/S. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS. LTD. AND ANR. ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Date : 16/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa,Adv.
Mr. Koshy John,Adv.
Ms. Anusha Nagarajan,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddi,Adv.Gen.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits since Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) is not any longer concerned with the controversy and since the land in-question is located in the newly established State of Telangana and is now Signature Not Verified looked after by Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Corporation Limited, the petitioners may be permitted to add Date: 2015.09.19 12:37:56 IST Reason:
Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited as the party-respondent to these proceedings. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddi, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent 2 no.3-State of Telangana, submits that he has no objection to the addition prayed for by Mr. Sibal. We accordingly allow the oral prayer made by Mr. Sibal and permit the petitioners to add Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited as a party respondent to this petition. Amended cause title be filed accordingly.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, who has earlier appeared on behalf of respondent no.2-Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, submits that he has instructions even to appear on behalf of the newly added Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file his vakalatnama.
An affidavit has been filed by Mrs. A. Rashmi, General Manager (Law) of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited inter alia stating that the Corporation is ready to offer Plot No.15-A excluding the rock formation area or alternatively Plot No.16-A to an extent of 9 acres 07 guntas, as shown in the map enclosed with the affidavit, to the petitioners herein. The affidavit does not however disclose the authority on the basis of which the offer has been made by the General Manager (Law). It is not clear whether any Board meeting was convened and the issue regarding exchange of plots, as indicated in the affidavit, discussed. And if no Board meeting was convened and the matter never came for discussion before the Board of Directors of the Corporation, as to who instructed the General Manager (Law) to file the affidavit making an offer like the one made in para '6' thereof. Confronted with this position, Mr. Sagar, appearing for the Corporation, seeks leave to withdraw the said affidavit and file a fresh affidavit stating :
(1) Whether the offer made in para '6' of the earlier affidavit is being reiterated by the Corporation; (2) Whether the offer has the sanction of the State Government in which the land originally vested; and 3 (3) The process by which the proposal for exchange has travelled to the Board of Directors for a decision to make the offer indicated in the affidavit.
The affidavit shall also indicate whether any Board resolution had been passed and if no Board resolution was passed, the person under whose instruction affidavit dated 14th September, 2015 was filed by the General Manager (Law). Needful be done by learned counsel for the respondent within four weeks. Reply to the same, if any, be filed by the petitioners within one week thereafter.
Post on Wednesday, the 4th November, 2015.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER