Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sunshine Drinks Pvt Ltd vs Raj State Indu Development on 12 February, 2013
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2200/2010 Sunshine Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Date of Order : 12.02.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Suresh Kumar Pareek, for the petitioner-Company. Mr. Sameer Jain, for respondent-RIICO. BY THE COURT
1) The matter comes up on an application No.24550/2010 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 17.02.2010, passed by this Court.
2) Counsels, for the petitioner and the respondent-RIICO, have submitted that the disposal of the aforesaid application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India would entail the same arguments as to the disposal of the petition as the whole. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be disposed of finally.
3) With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at this stage.
4) The facts of the case are that an industrial plot bearing No.C-26-C situate at Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur was allotted to the petitioner-Company by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter 'RIICO') on 10.01.1978. Thereafter, a lease-deed dated 30.08.1978 was executed by RIICO in favour of the petitioner-Company. A condition of the lease-deed was that the Lessee shall not carry on or permit to be carried on the demised premises any activities for any purpose, other than industrial purposes, without the previous consent in writing of the Lessor and the Local Municipal Authority and subject to such terms and conditions as the Lessor/Local Municipal Authority may impose for the alternate user.
5) RIICO received several complaints from Malviya Industrial Area Labour Union as also Malviya Industries Association against the petitioner-Company that the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner-Company was being misused for commercial purposes without any industrial activities being carried out thereon. It was stated that in fact the industrial plot in issue was being run as a marriage garden. A committee thereupon was constituted on 20.02.2009 by the Managing Director of RIICO to enquire into and take strict action against the allottees who were violating the terms and conditions of the lease-deed executed in their favour in Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur. A four members' committee headed by the Regional Manager of RIICO at Jaipur found on an enquiry made that the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner-Company was being used for marriage function as well as guest house and no industrial activity was being carried thereon. The unit was in fact being run as a 'Hotel King Win'.
6) A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Company by RIICO under the hand of its Regional Manager, Jaipur on 24.05.2004 and thereafter on 06.04.2005 and then on 17.06.2005 requiring the petitioner-Company to show cause as to why the lease-deed dated 30.08.1978 not be cancelled for breach of the specific conditions thereof with regard to the user being confined to industrial purpose and not being altered without permission of RIICO. Reply filed by the petitioner-Company to the show cause notices was not found satisfactorily by RIICO. Consequently, vide order dated 08.02.2006, the lease-deed dated 30.08.1978 executed in favour of the petitioner-Company in respect of industrial plot No.C-26-C situated at Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur was cancelled by the Regional Manager of RIICO. Simultaneous to the cancellation aforesaid, the petitioner-Company was asked to hand over the possession of the plot in issue within seven days and take the refundable amount as per extant rules from RIICO's regional office. It was stated that in case of failure of the petitioner-Company to hand over possession in time, the plot would be deemed to have been taken into possession by RIICO and action would be taken to take actual possession of the premises under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1964') through the competent Estate Officer.
7) On the failure of the petitioner-Company to vacate the premises in issue following the termination of lease-deed dated 30.08.1978 under the order 08.02.2006, proceedings were taken against the petitioner-Company by RIICO for its dispossession as it had become an unauthorized occupant following the cancellation of lease-deed dated 30.08.1978. The proceedings as stated above were under the Act of 1964.
8) Section 2(e) of the Act of 1964 defines unauthorised Occupation which is as under :
unauthorised occupation, in relation to any public premises means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other ode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.
9) Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964 defines public premises. Clause (iii) of Section 2(b) provides that land inter alia in the ownership of RIICO in the industrial area developed by it shall be covered within the meaning of public premises. It is thus evident that the plot allotted to the petitioner-Company fell within the mining of public premises' under the Act of 1964 and the petitioner-Company was an unauthorised occupant thereof in view of the lease in its favour having been terminated by RIICO under its order dated 08.02.2006. The Estate Officer consequently in the facts of the case, vide order dated 30.03.2009 under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1964 directed that the petitioner-Company being found to be an unauthorised occupant of public premises was liable to be evicted therefrom. Consequently it was held that the petitioner-Company would be under a duty/obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the plot in issue to the RIICO within 30 days. An appeal by the petitioner-Company against the order dated 30.03.2009, passed by the Estate Officer, was also dismissed by the appellate authority (District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur) under its order dated 11.12.2009.
10 Heard the counsel for the petitioner-Company and the respondent-RIICO and perused the petition as also annexures thereto.
11) At the outset, counsel for the respondent-RIICO has submitted that the order of cancellation of the lease-deed of the petitioner passed by the Regional Officer of RIICO on 08.02.2006 has not been challenged in the writ petition, nor any other proceedings. He submits that consequently, the said order dated 08.02.2006 has attained finality. It is submitted that the order dated 08.02.2006 having attained finality, it is evident that the petitioner-Company is an unauthorised occupant under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1964. Counsel submits that in this view of the matter, the finding of the Estate Officer and directions for the eviction of the petitioner-Company from plot No.C-26-C situate at Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur in the first instance and the appellate authority thereafter under order 11.12.2009 cannot be put to challenge before this Court.
12) Counsel for the petitioner-Company fairly admits that the order dated 08.02.2006 terminating the lease for plot No.C-26-C situate at Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur, has not put to any challenge and that consequences would flow therefrom.
13) It is trite that where the fundamental order is not under challenge, consequential order cannot be put to challenge before a court. The order dated 08.02.2006 cancelling the lease-deed executed in favour of the petitioner-company has not been put to challenge before this Court. The said order is the foundation of the petitioner-Company being treated as an unauthorised occupant on RIICO's land which falls within the definition of public premises under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964.
14 Aside of the aforesaid fundamental defect in the writ petition, I have also considered the contents of the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Estate Officer, Jaipur and the appellate order 11.12.2009 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In my considered view, in the exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no ground to interfere with the aforesaid orders even on their own merit.
15) Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. The stay order 17.02.2010, passed by this Court stands vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition.
16) Stay application and the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India need no address in view of the writ petition itself being dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A.