Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Antarctica Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 April, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
28.04.2017
S.L-9(KB)
W. P. 1206 (W) of 2016
(Assigned)
Antarctica Limited
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. R. K. Chowdhury
Mr. Protyush Chatterjee
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee
Mr. Mithu Bhattacharya
... For the Union of India.
Mr. R. K. Chowdhury, Learned Counsel
appears for the writ petitioner and submits that the writ
petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned dated 12th
November, 2015, which is cryptic.
Taking this Court to the order of 12th
November, 2015, Mr. Chowdhury points out that the
order was issued pursuant to the solemn order of a
Hon'ble Single Bench dated 3rd September, 2015 in W.P.
No.33831 (W) of 2014. The order dated 3rd September,
2015 (supra), inter alia, reads as follows:
2
"The disputes revolve around
accounts between the parties. Such account is
required to be looked into by the authorities.
In such circumstances, the
respondent no.2 is directed to look into the
accounts between the parties. The first writ petitioner will be entitled to be represented before the respondent no.2. The writ petitioners will be entitled to produce relevant records before the respondent no.2. It is expected that the respondent no.2 looks into the accounts and decides the issue of the liability of the writ petitioner, if any, towards the authorities on account of interest or otherwise within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order to him.
As an interim measure, the writ petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.12 laks with the respondent no.2 who shall deposit the sum with a nationalized bank in a suitable interest bearing fixed deposit without any lien. In the event, any amount less than Rs. 12 laks is found to be due and payable, the respondent no.2 will make over such sum to the appropriate authority and will refund the balance to the writ petitioner. In the event no sum is found due then the entire fixed deposit along with accrued interest would be returned to the writ petitioner.
In the process of looking into the accounts if the authorities find that the first writ petitioner has made excess payment, the excess 3 sum would also be directed to be refunded to the first writ petitioner.
The learned advocate for the writ petitioner on instruction submits that the writ petitioners will take appropriate steps for the purpose of withdrawal of the suit being Money Suit no.77 of 2014 within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petitioner will have such money suit withdrawn as expeditiously as possible.
On receipt of the sum of Rs.12 laks, the authorities will allow the first writ petitioner to carry on business. The writ petitioner will continue to pay the contracted amount to the authorities in terms of the contract existing between them.
This order will not prevent the
respondent authorities from taking suitable
steps against the writ petitioner in the event of any breach of agreement.
The writ petition is disposed of."
Next, Mr. Chowdhury takes this Court to the representation of the petitioner at pages 95 and 96 of this writ petition addressed to the Respondents/Falta Special Economic Zone (for short Falta SEZ) attempting to explain in detail the reasons for being aggrieved by the alleged excess demand under several heads as raised by the Falta SEZ Authority.
4
Mr. Choudhury, therefore, complains of the fact that the order impugned dated 12th November, 2015 bearing No. FSEZA /Antarctica/2015/23554 attempts to make no discussion or, in other words, does not demonstrate an application of mind by the Secretary, Falta SEZ Authority communicating on behalf of its Development Commission in purported compliance of the solemn order dated 3rd September, 2015.
Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Falta SEZ Authority makes the point that the position of Rules as regularly applied to other units in the Falta SEZ have also been invoked against the present petitioner and, there is no discrimination in the assessment of dues. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee points out that the order impugned dated 12th November, 2015 does not qualify to be treated as a deviation from the applicable standards.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court, although being conscious of the line of the authorities which call upon a Writ Court to exercise self-restraint while adjudicating issues of facts, cannot also turn the other way when a knee-jerk quasi-judicial adjudication inspite of fairly specific 5 directions embodied in the order dated 3rd March, 2015, is brought to its notice.
This Court is therefore of the view that the order impugned dated 12th November, 2015 does not do justice to the letter and spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 3rd September, 2015 (supra) and, the Competent Authority of the Falta SEZ is required to demonstrate a manifest application of mind in terms of the order dated 3rd September, 2015 (supra).
Therefore, the Respondent/Falta SEZ Authority is directed to re-visit the issue on merits in terms of its Rules in complete, not, in token compliance of the order dated 3rd September, 2015.
In the backdrop of the above discussion, the order impugned dated 12th November, 2015 stands set aside.
The Falta SEZ Authority is directed to act as held above within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
WP No.1206 (W) of 2016 stands accordingly disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance 6 of necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar,J.)