Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Neelaveni Industries vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.951 & 972 of 2023
Writ Appeal No.951 of 2023
Between:
M/s. Neelaveni Industries,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Bellana Chinna Rao,
R/o H.No.3-198, Srinivasa Nagar,
Tekkali, Srikakulam.
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Principal Secretary to Government
Industrial & Commerce Department,
Secretariat, Amaravathi,
Guntur & four others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Ms. K. Ramya Krishna,
rep. by Mr. Sitaram Chaparla
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Learned Government Pleader
for Industries
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. J. Ugra Narasimha
(Learned Standing Counsel
for APIIC)
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad,
HCJ & RRR, J
2 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023
Writ Appeal No.972 of 2023
Between:
M/s. Neelaveni Industries,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Bellana Chinna Rao,
R/o H.No.3-198, Srinivasa Nagar,
Tekkali, Srikakulam.
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Principal Secretary to Government
Industrial & Commerce Department,
Secretariat, Amaravathi,
Guntur & three others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Ms. K. Ramya Krishna,
rep. by Mr. Sitaram Chaparla
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Learned Government Pleader
for Industries
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. J. Ugra Narasimha
(Learned Standing Counsel
for APIIC)
Dt.: 23.02.2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel representing Smt. Kodati Ramya Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri J. Ugra HCJ & RRR, J 3 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 Narasimham, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APIIC respondents 2 to 4 and Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.A.No.951 of 2023.
2. The appellant herein had been allotted plot No.9 in Gambheeram Industrial Estate, APIIC Park, Visakhapatnam, in the year 2015, under a sale-cum-lease agreement executed on 17.06.2015. As the appellant, after paying some amount, could not pay the land cost of Rs.76,00,000/- the allotment made to the appellant was cancelled. Around the same time, the 1st respondent-State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 05.02.2022, extending certain additional support measures to all SC and ST Entrepreneurs. This G.O. stipulated, in Clause 7 (viii) and (ix), as follows:
Clause 7 (viii): - In respect of cancelled allotments, the re-allotment shall be made subject to availability of vacancy in the same Industrial Park or Autonagar without having been allotted to other prospective entrepreneur and /or not earmarked for other purposes by APIIC Ltd., as on the date of this Government Order.
Clause 7 (ix):- In all such cases, where allotments were cancelled due to either non-implementation of the project or non-payment of the land cost, first option is to re-allot the same plot, if it is still available, and if not, the second option is to allot any other plot in the same IP/IE, as per the choice of the allottee and HCJ & RRR, J 4 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 if no vacancy is there in the IP/IE, then the third option is to allot suitable plots in any nearby or other IP/IE, as per the choice of the allottee, at the original allotment price."
3. However, plot No.9, which was initially allotted to the appellant, was re-allotted to the 5th respondent herein and a provisional allotment letter, dated 16.02.2022, was issued.
Aggrieved by the said cancellation of allotment, by way of the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, Zonal Manager, bearing Lr.No. G.O.Ms.No.7/SC&ST/APIIC/VSP/REG/2022, dated 11.03.2022, the appellant approached this Court, by way of W. P. No. 7473 of 2022. Aggrieved by the allotment of the plot to the 5th respondent, the Appellant moved W. P. No. 28786 of 2022, before this Court. It was the contention of the appellant that she was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022 as she was an entrepreneur belonging to an SC Community and as such the plot should have been re-allotted to her under Clause 7 (viii) and (ix). It is the case of the petitioner that she was entitled to re-allotment of plot No.9 as it had not been allotted to any other person, as on 05.02.2022 and the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 should have been given to her.
4. The 5th respondent as well as the other official respondents filed their counter affidavits before the learned Single Judge. After hearing all sides the learned Single Judge was HCJ & RRR, J 5 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 pleased to dismiss the writ petitions by a common order dated 05.07.2023. Being aggrieved by this common order, the appellant has moved Writ Appeal Nos.951 of 2023 and 972 of 2023 before this Court.
5. Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel representing Smt. Kodati Ramya Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in both these appeals, would contend that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022 had to be granted to the appellant and the cancellation of the allotment of plot to the appellant, despite her willingness to pay the remaining amount, is to be set aside.
6. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.A.No.951 of 2023 would submit that on facts the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022.
7. A perusal of the facts reveals the following:
a) Plot No.9 was allotted to the appellant on 15.12.2015 subject to payment of the total land cost of Rs.76,00,000/-. By 2020 an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- had been paid and Rs.54,00,000/- remained unpaid. The allotment of this plot, to the appellant, was cancelled on 31.10.2018. Later, a deed of cancellation was executed on 21.01.2020 and registered on HCJ & RRR, J 6 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 23.01.2020 as document No.376 of 2020. After this cancellation, the appellant sought restoration of the allotment by way of letter dated 02.11.2021. In response to this letter, M/s. APIIC issued letter dated 17.11.2021 directing the allottee to submit a mandate form for refund of the amounts paid earlier. As the mandate form, for refunding the money directly into the account of the appellant, has not been given, the relevant Committee, in its meeting held on 05.01.2022, directed refund of the land cost through Demand Draft drawn in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, by letter dated 25.02.2022, M/s. APIIC is said to have been refunded the land cost paid till then, to the tune of Rs.7,11,180/-, after deducting occupation charges.
b) Similarly, the 5th respondent, who had applied for allotment of a plot, was allotted Plot No.9 in the SLAC meeting dated 02.02.2022. Thereafter, by letter dated 16.02.2022, the Zonal Manager of M/s.APIIC called upon the 5th respondent to pay the land cost and to accept the allotment of the said plot.
c) A letter dated 11.03.2022 was addressed to the appellant stating that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022, entitling her to the reallotment of the plot, which was allotted to the appellant, or a substitute to the HCJ & RRR, J 7 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 plot allotted in the Industrial area on the same land cost as fixed earlier.
d) In a subsequent letter, dated 11.08.2022, addressed to the appellant, it was stated that M/s. APIIC by letter dated 20.05.2022 had offered plot No.46 and plot No.47A to the appellant and the same was accepted by the appellant, by representation dated 30.06.2022, and the appellant would be allotted the said plot after withdrawal of the Court case bearing W.P.No.7473 of 2022 and after obtaining orders from the Vice- Chairman and Managing Director of APIIC and that his orders are awaited.
8. Clause 7 (ix) of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022 specifically states that the first option would be to re-allot the same plot if it is still available and to allot any other plot if the original plot is not available. In the present case, the plot had already been allotted to the 5th respondent even by the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022. Subsequently, the appellant is said to have accepted the offer of allotment of Plot No.46 and 47A, in the same industrial area.
9. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot contend that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022 has not been given to the appellant.
HCJ & RRR, J 8 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023
10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to avail of the benefits available to the appellant under G.O. Ms.No.7 dated 05.02.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J JS HCJ & RRR, J 9 W.A.No.951 & 972 of 2023 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos.951 & 972 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 23rd February, 2024 JS