Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, relied upon the provisions of Section 10 (1) of the SEZ Act, to submit that while taking impugned decision by the respondent No.1, the provisions of Section 10 of the SEZ Act which provides for suspension of the co-developer agreement is violated as no such ground is reflected in the impugned order of approval of co-developer status in favour of the respondent No.4. It was further submitted that similarly Section 10(1) and 10(9) of the SEZ Act are also not considered prior to the impugned decision because the co- developer agreement could not have been cancelled in absence of any breach on the part of the petitioner.

4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, referred to Section 13 of the SEZ Act to submit that constitution of approval committee and powers of approval committee as per section 14 of the approval committee do not lay down any procedure for cancellation of letter of approval. It was therefore submitted that in view of the information given by the respondent No.3 that revised co- developer agreement with the respondent No.4 mentions about the transfer of assets and liabilities of the petitioner to the new co-developer and the co- developer agreement with the petitioner, which was required to be cancelled is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules as no agreement could have been entered between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 prior to the suspension of transfer/cancellation of the letter of approval by the respondent No.1 issued in favour of the petitioner.

4.9 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that before entering into any agreement of Co-developer with the respondent No.4, the respondent No.3- Dahej SEZ Ltd. was required to first to suspend the petitioner as a co-developer and thereafter, was required to cancel the co-developer agreement after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as per provision of Section 10 of the SEZ Act. It was therefore, contended that the co- developer agreement dated 02.08.2017 and 4, which is anterior in point of time could be valid only if it is preceded in point of time by the decision of the Board of Approval in conformity with the provisions of SEZ Act.

5.1 Mr. Trivedi, the learned senior advocate submitted that the impugned decision by the respondent No.1 in its meeting held on 04.04.2018 is nothing but ratification of the co-developer agreement executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4 so as to make the original Co-developer agreement with petitioner as redundant. Accordingly, it was decided by the Board of Approval to cancel the co-