Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/631/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 631 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12733 of 2009
To
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 636 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12738 of 2009
=============================================
NEW
AGE OIL INDUSTRIES THRO ITS PROPRIETOR - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
- Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
SAURABH M PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
respondent Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation raised
non-utilization charge. The petitioners made grievance that such
raising of non-utilization charge is contrary to the terms of
Circulars dated 28.10.1997 and 22.12.2006 issued by the Corporation,
since original plot Nos. 82/2 and 85 were not utilized for more than
20 years.
Learned
Single Judge found that petitioner Partnership firm was granted
permission to construct factory shed on the said premises by
respondent Corporation in the year 1979. Thereafter, permission
was granted to the petitioner to sub-divide the said plots into 13
small size plots. The partnership firm got dissolved in the year
2008 and the assets of the firm were transferred in favour of the
petitioner and since then it has been functioning as a proprietary
firm.
Having
noticed that petitioner initially did not oppose raising of
non-utilization charges, till permission was granted to utilize the
said plots by dividing into 13 plots, learned Single Judge refused to
interfere with the action of respondents.
In
the present case, we find that learned Single Judge refused to
exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on
the ground that petitioners are taking advantage of transfer of the
plots in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
at least some Authority should decide the issue on merit. For the
said purpose, he sought permission to withdraw the appeals so as to
enable the petitioners to request the respondent to decide the
controversy on merits as such, having been left undecided by the
learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstances while we allow
the petitioners to withdraw the appeals to move before the Authority
but no liberty is given to move before this Court for same cause of
action or to raise same or similar issue. Appeals stand disposed of
with aforesaid observation. No costs.
(S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)
(K.M.
Thaker, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top