Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Priya Grih Udyog on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2263 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S GUDIYA ENTERPRISES
***
WRIT APPEAL No. 2147 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S FIZA TOYS
***
WRIT APPEAL No. 2148 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GENERAL STEEL FABRICATION
***
WRIT APPEAL No. 2262 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MALWA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS
and
WRIT APPEAL No. 2265 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S PRIYA GRIH UDYOG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 2/25/2025
5:48:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Vishal Baheti - learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rizwan Khan - learned
counsel for the respondent(s).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 07.02.2025
Pronounced on : 24.02.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari These writ appeals filed by the appellant/State under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated 13.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.4588/2014, 4525/2014, 6864/2014, 7675/2014 and 4778/2014 respectively filed by the petitioner/respondent.
2. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in these writ appeals, therefore, the writ appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.2263/2024 (State of M.P. & ors. vs. M/s. Gudiya Enterprises Ltd.).
3. Respondent (writ petitioner)-M/s. Gudiya Enterprises is a proprietorship concern and one Smt. Nusrat Khan is the sole proprietor of the said firm. She had applied for allotment of approximately one lakh sq.ft land on 22.07.2005. The said application was filed as per the prevalent rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh (Shed, Plot and Land Allotment) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974'). As per the Clause-5 of the Rules of 1974 certain priorities have been fixed by the State Government in respect of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 2/25/2025 5:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811 3 allotment to different entrepreneurs for setting up their industries. As per the said Clause cent percent export based units/export were given the first preference. Similarly in the said list of priorities, women entrepreneur were also given priority. The amended Rules, 2008 provide for the deposit of 25% of the applicable premium and there was another clause for placing Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Category and Women Entrepreneurs in priority list for allotment.
4. The respondent had challenged the order dated 19.05.2024 Annexure P/2 passed by respondent No.2 on the ground that new allotment Rules, 2008 came into force w.e.f 01.07.2009 and therefore, as per the provisions of the said Rules the land for industrial purpose has to be given by respondent No.3 in industrial area, Indore through auction only because total land available for allotment has exceeded more than 80%. The second reason assigned by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order is the rejection of the respondent's contention that she is also required to be allotted plot on the basis of parity since similarly situated firms namely Ms. Indian Soya Industries and Vivakanand Handicrafts etc. were allotted the plots. The case of the respondents pertains to pre 2009 before the new Rules came into existence. This fact has been clarified by this Court in order dated 02.09.2013 passed in W.P.No.780/2010. In that case, the appellants herein were directed to give the same treatment to the respondent as given to the other allottees mentioned hereinabove.
5. The name of the respondent firm in the preferential list was at Sr.No.3 and at present is at Sr.No.2, therefore, the unit should have been awarded the land within years because land was available in abundance at that point of time.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 2/25/2025 5:48:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811 4
6. Certain illustration have also been produced by the respondent in the writ petition which goes to show that the persons down below in the preferential list have been allotted the land.
7. The respondent is aggrieved by the orders dated 20.01.2010 and 10.07.2012, passed by the respondent No.3. Vide order dated 20.01.2010, the respondent has been informed that despite the fact that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the priority list, its claim for allotment of plot cannot be considered on account of the fact that the State Government has introduced new Rules known as Madhya Pradesh Rajya Audyogik Bhumi Evam Audyogik Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2008, the plots have to be sold through auction only. Whereas, vide order dated 10.07.2012, bank account of the respondent is sought to refund the amount deposited by the respondent.
8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was sleeping over their right and did not approach this Court in time, therefore, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 2/25/2025 5:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811 5 they are estopped from challenging the orders at such a belated stage. At present no land is available which can be allotted to the respondent. Two plots were already reserved for Ms. Anupam Steel and Ms.Shaifali Garments but in the present case no piece of land is reserved for the respondent as their claim was already terminated by the appellants. He further submitted that as per the Rules, 2008 the allotment of plots has to be done strictly through auction, if any plots would have been available. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is not in dispute that similar issue came before this Court as mentioned herein in the preceding paragraphs. In those cases it was held that a number of allotment of plots was made contrary to the Rules and regulations and when the respondents had pointed out this anomaly their applications have been rejected. The respondents had approached this Court well within time since the writ petitions were filed in the year 2014 itself i.e. immediately after rejection of their claims, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petitions were filed with delay has no legs to stand.
12. In identical cases, the writ appeals as well as SLP has already been dismissed in the following manner :
(I) Writ Appeal No.530/2017 (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Anupam Steels) and Writ Appeal No.537/2017 (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Shaifali Garments) :
"35. In the present case, it has also been not disputed by the learned Government Advocate for the appellant - State of Madhya Pradesh that a number of allotment of plots was made contrary to the Rules and regulations and when this was pointed out by the respondent in his writ petition, his application was rejected, contrary to the directions made in the writ petition.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 2/25/2025 5:48:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811 6
36. From the aforesaid, we cannot accept the submissions of the learned Government Advocate that there is no discrimination while not allotting plot to the respondent. While considering the case of others and not allotting plot to the respondent, allotment of plot to Apsara Garments [as per paragraph No.5.24 (c) of the writ petition] is a glaring example of discrimination.
37. Per contra, Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that hundred of plots have been allotted by the appellant contrary to the Rules, 1974 and Rules, 2008, but he gave details of only 10-15 plots, as he was not having details of other allotments.
38. There is no material on record to prove that allotment of plot to Apsara Garments was an extension of original allotment. In affidavit dated 09.03.2017 filed by Shri Ambrish Adhikari, General Manager, District Trade & Industries Centre, Indore, no detail particulars as to how much land was originally allotted to Apsara Garments.
39. Considering the aforesaid facts and events, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 20.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8734/2015 and Writ Petition No.276/2015 by the learned Writ Court. Writ appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed.
40. In the result, Writ Appeal No.530/2017 and Writ Appeal No.537/2017 filed by the appellant / State of Madhya Pradesh are dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) each. Original order be retained in Writ Appeal No.530/2017 and a copy thereof be retained in connected cases. The amount of costs shall be deposited with the Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Indore, within four weeks from today."
(II) Review Petition No.98/2018 :
"In view of certain admission made by learned Government Advocate at the time of argument so also the factum of allotment Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 2/25/2025 5:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4811 7 contrary to the rules have been admitted. We considering the detailed reply filed by the review petitioners passed the impugned order. There is no error apparent on the face of the record."
(III) SLP (Civil) 28804/2018 :
"We are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court. The Special leave petitioners are, accordingly, dismissed."
13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 13.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge requiring interference by this Court.
14. Consequently, these appeals being devoid of merit and substance are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 2/25/2025
5:48:59 PM