Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Anupam Processing Works vs Raj. State Indu. Deve. & I.C. Ltd., &Ors on 17 April, 2013
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1186/2010
(Nandu Dyeing Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial and
Investment Corporation Ltd. & Another)
2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5688/2012
(Mahalaxmi Dying Co. v. R.I.I.C.O. & ors.)
3. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5689/2012
(M/s. United Sales Corpn. v. RIICO & Ors.)
4. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3313/2010
(M/s. Shantilal Rajendra Kumar v. RIICO & Ors.)
5. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3314/2010
(M/s.Vijaya Textile Industries v. RIICO & Ors)
6. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10923/2010
(M/s. Vikram Textile Mill v. RIICO & Ors.)
7. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3759/2012
(M/s. Navrang Dying Works v. RIICO & Ors.)
8. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3760/2013
(M/s. Anupam Processing Works v. RIICO & Ors.)
9. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1768/2010
(M/s. K.B. Fab Tax v. RIICO & Ors.)
10. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1769/2010
(Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim v. RIICO & Ors.)
11. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1770/2010
(Sumit Process v. RIICO & Ors.)
12. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1961/2010
(Mohammad Sharif Finishing v. RIICO & Ors.)
13. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2068/2010
(Vinod Textile Mills v. RIICO & Ors.)
2
14. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2074/2010
(I.G. Process v. RIICO & Ors.)
15. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2075/2010
(Vinod Textile Mills v. RIICO & Ors.)
16. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2076/2010
(M/s. Hazi Mohammed v. RIICO & Ors.)
17. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2010
(Nakoda Industries v. RIICO & Ors.)
18. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2010
(Madhu Tex Milld v. RIICO & Ors.)
19. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2079/2010
(Geeta Process v. RIICO & Ors.)
20. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2382/2010
(M/s. Manish Process v. RIICO & Ors.)
21. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2427/2010
(Shilpa Textiles v. RIICO & Ors.)
22. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2432/2010
(Mohan Murli Mills v. RIICO & Ors.)
23. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2437/2010
(M/s. Ganesh Finishing v. RIICO & Ors.)
24. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2439/2010
(M/s. Subh Laxmi Fabrics v. RIICO & Ors.)
25. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2440/2010
(M/s. Nemichand & Sons v. RIICO & Ors.)
26. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2441/2010
(Rukhsana Bano v. RIICO & Ors.)
27. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2442/2010
(Khivraj Amarchand Gadiya v. RIICO & Ors.)
28. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2443/2010
(M/s. Minerva Mills Trade v. RIICO & Ors.)
3
29. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6986/2010
(Narain Lal v. RIICO & Ors.)
30. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.769/2010
(M/s. Vinayak Febtax v. RIICO & Ors.)
31. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1185/2010
(Shwet Shilp Industries v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
32 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2073/2010
(M/s. Ganpati Process v. RIICO & Ors.)
33. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1187/2010
(Praveen Kumar Bhanwar lal Kothari v. RIICO & Ors.)
34. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1188/2010
(Narendra Prints v. RIICO & Ors.)
35. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1189/2010
(Narendra Tex Prints v. RIICO & Ors.)
36. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1190/2010
(Rishabh Dying v. RIICO & Ors.)
37. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1191/2010
(Sonu Industries v. RIICO & Ors.)
38. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1192/2010
(Raju Processing Centre v. RIICO & Ors.)
39. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1193/2010
(Kamal Prints v. RIICO & Ors.)
40. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1194/2010
(Matushri Chemicals v. RIICO & Ors.)
41. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1195/2010
(Jai Hanuman Desaizing v. RIICO & Ors.)
42. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1196/2010
(Hanuman Fabrics v. RIICO & Ors.)
43. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1197/2010
(Manak Enterprises v. RIICO & Ors.)
4
44. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1198/2010
(Shri Suraj Industries v. RIICO & Ors.)
45. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1756/2010
(Somnath Industries v. RIICO & Ors.)
46. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1757/2010
(Surya Creations v. RIICO & Ors.)
DATE OF ORDER : April 17, 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas
Mr. Rakesh Arora }
Mr. Rajesh Parihar }
Mr. Niraj K. Jain } for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Beniwal }
Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur }
Mr. D.K. Joshi } for the respondent(s).
BY THE COURT :
In all the above writ petitions, common controversy is involved, therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1186/2010, Nandu Dyeing, Bajrang Bari, Pali through its partners Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation Ltd. & Another are taken into consideration for discussion upon facts and law.
The precise controversy involved in all above writ 5 petitions is with regard to rejection of the applications of the respective petitioners for allotment of plots in RIICO industrial area, Punayata, Pali. In a PIL writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.759/2002, filed by Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti, certain directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.03.2004 whereby the State Pollution Control Board was directed to make fresh inspection of the textile processing units of Pali and surrounding area and, in case, any of the units is found to be creating pollution and not connected with CETPs the same was directed to be closed. Further, it is ordered by the Division Bench that respondent (herein) RIICO shall set up an industrial area at a suitable place within a period of six months exclusively for textile processing units which must be located at an appropriate distance from the residential areas and the industry shall be shifted to the newly developed industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter. Following directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition :
"I. The Pollution Control Board shall immediately make fresh inspection of the Textile Processing Units at Pali and surrounding areas and in case 6 any of the units are found to be creating pollution and not connected to the CETPs shall be closed.
II. The units which are creating
pollution shall adopt measures to
eliminate pollution.
III. RIICO shall set up an industrial area at a suitable place exclusively for textile processing units. The industrial area must be located at an appropriate distance from residential areas. RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter.
IV. The Trust shall make modification in the CETPs so that the emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board.
V. The industrial units which are discharging the industrial pollutant on the land or/and river shall be closed forthwith.
VI. The State shall employ experts to assess the damage caused to the environment and health of the public by the pollution created by the units. On assessment of the damage, the concerned authority shall file a report in this court within a period of eight weeks, thereupon the question of payment of compensation by the units on the principle of polluter pays shall be determined."7
Similarly, a bunch of writ petitions were decided vide judgment dated 11.4.2008 along with SB Civil Writ Petition No.6954/2007 (Aruna Mills, Pali Vs. State & Others), by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in which, while disposing of 125 writ petitions following observation/direction was made :
"If the matter is viewed even from another angle to consider the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners to allow petitioners' industries to work in an area other than industrial area, following serious consequences exists :-
(i) Continuance of the industries would then be in violation of direction No.3 of the Division Bench in the case of Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti.
(ii) None of the petitioners - industry is having consent from the Rajasthan Pollution Board, therefore, continuance of those industries would then be in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1974 and, in those circumstances, this Court is not competent to permit any industry to run in violation of the provisions of law.
In view of the above, no petitioner
- industry can be allowed to operate during the intervening period if it is operating not only contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench, but also contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1974.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly with the directions to the parties to abide by the directions 8 otherwise specifically given above."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after directions issued by the Division Bench and learned Single Judge of this Court, an industrial area was developed in Punayata industrial area, Pali by the respondent RIICO in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, in which, applications were invited for allotment of plots. The petitioners' units were situated in non conforming area, therefore, closed as per directions of the Division Bench and, for that purpose, a notice under Section 33.A of the Act of 1974 was issued by the Pollution Control Board directing the petitioners to close the respective units.
Admittedly, the petitioners' units were situated at the non-conforming area of Pali and, due to closure of their units, the petitioners are not in position to perform business activity. This Court passed certain directions but RIICO has failed to comply those directions for more than four years inspite of the fact that petitioners are eligible for allotment of plots in the Punayata industrial area, Pali, newly developed industrial area because their units were operating in the non-conforming area, therefore, all the petitioners filed applications for allotment of plots in pursuance of information Annex.-1 issued by the RIICO on 9 11.05.2009. A survey was conducted by the RIICO for verification of the fact whether the units are actually working or not and for that purpose recommendation were made for allotment of plots in Punayata industrial are. The petitioners are waiting for allotment of plots after submitting their applications in prescribed proforma for allotment of plots with requisite demand draft; but, all of sudden, vide letter dated 22.12.2009, the petitioners were informed that their applications have been rejected by the RIICO and, therefore, the amount deposited by them is hereby returned through cheque.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that there is discrimination in the allotment of plots because while deciding application for allotment in the Punayata industrial area, Pali, no reasons are assigned in the letter of rejection dated 22.12.2009 and inspite of availability of plots, petitioners are entitled for allotment as per rules, the respondent RIICO rejected all the applications without assigning any reason, therefore, action of the respondent RIICO is contrary to principles of natural justice, therefore, the unreasoned order of rejection dated 22.12.2009 may be quashed and RIICO may be directed to decide the applications of the 10 petitioners afresh while passing reasoned order after providing an opportunity of hearing.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and RIICO submit that although no reasons are incorporated in the rejection letter but as per provisions of law the petitioners are not entitled for allotment of plot in the Punayata industrial area, Pali, therefore, all these writ petitions may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned rejection order dated 22.12.2009. It is very strange that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court new industrial area was set up at Punayata, Pali and to ascertain the correctness of facts a survey was also conducted by the RIICO, therefore, it is obvious that once survey has been conducted by the respondent as per directions of this Court and plots are available, then, the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plot is required to be considered objectively by the respondents as per their eligibility and; if the petitioner- applicants are not entitled for allotment of plot for any reason, then, those reasons are required to be informed to the petitioner-applicants. But, here, in this case, it is evident from the impugned letter/order that no reason has 11 been assigned for rejection of their prayer for allotment of plot. Therefore, the order/letter impugned dated 22.12.2009 is not sustainable in law.
Consequently, letter/order impugned dated 22.12.2009 is quashed and set aside and all the above writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions :
(A) all the petitioners may file fresh application along with all necessary documents to prove their eligibility for respective claim of allotment of plot within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(B) Respondent RIICO is directed to re-consider the applications filed by the petitioners afresh for allotment of existing plots objectively while taking into consideration the documentary evidence filed along with the application as per survey report and pass reasoned order within a period of two months thereafter.
(C) It is expected from the respondent RIICO that no unnecessary technicalities will be taken into account for deciding applications for allotment of existing plots to the petitioner-applicants and claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots in newly developed industrial area at Punayata, Pali will be considered with a view to establishing the industrial area for development of the textile processing 12 industry.
(D) It is made clear that in the event of allotment of plots to the eligible candidates, the cost of the plots shall be determined as per existing Rules.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.