Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2362/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2362 of 2008
=========================================================
FRIENDS
SALTS WORKS & ALLIED INDUSTRIES - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANDLA
PORT TRUST & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SHAILI A KAPADIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 25/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate writ to quash and
set aside the decision of the respondents conveyed to the petitioner
through the mode of Caveat dated 02.02.2008 by respondent No.1, filed
before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch, for
taking back the land admeasuring 1010.156 acres situated at East of
Nakti Creek, Kandla allotted by respondent No.1 on lease basis. The
petitioner has also prayed to issue an appropriate writ directing the
respondents to renew the lease of the land admeasuring 1010.156 acres
allotted by respondent No.1 as per Clause 9 of indenture of lease
deed executed on 07.04.1979 executed between the Kandla Port Trust
and erstwhile allottee. Pending the petition, the petitioner has, by
way of an amendment, has prayed for an additional prayer to quash and
set aside the communication-cum-decision dated 30th
January, 2008 of Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road
Transport and Highways communicated to the Chairman, Kandla Port
Trust as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and against the
principles of natural justice.
2. Heard
Mr. S.I.Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Dhaval Vyas for respondent No.1 and Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant
Solicitor General of Government of India for respondent No.2.
3. Upon
hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears
that the basis of the present petition is the contents of the Caveat,
copy whereof is served upon the petitioner, filed on behalf of the
Kandla Port Trust, wherein there was reference to the decision of the
Trust as well as of the Government of India for resumption of the
land and non-renewal of the lease. It also appears that the
Government of India, Ministry of Shipping vide decision dated 30th
January, 2008 communicated to the Chairman of Kandla Port Trust for
resumption of the land and also for observing that the decision of
the Board pertaining to the lease deserves to be struck down. At the
initial stage since the decision of the Government of India was not
on record, but it has subsequently come on record and thereafter the
petitioner has amended the petition.
4. It
is undisputed position that before the decision was taken by
Government of India, for resumption of the land or on the aspect of
renewal of the land or otherwise, the opportunity of hearing was not
given to the petitioner, who is in actual occupation of the land,
claiming the status as transferee of the original lessee. The matter
was heard on the last occasion and the learned Assistant Solicitor
General was instructed to inquire as to whether in these
circumstances, the Government of India would like to give the
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or to maintain the present
order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Today when the matter is further taken up for hearing, the learned
Additional Solicitor General, under the instructions received from
Shri Rakesh Srivastav, Joint Secretary of Government of India,
Ministry of Shipping, states that the Government of India has no
objection for giving hearing and such hearing will be given before
the Secretary of Government of India, Ministry of Shipping through
Mohankumar. Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General also
declared that let it be left to the wisdom of the Government as to
whether the hearing should be given based on the communication dated
30th January, 2008 treating the same as show cause notice
or to issue a fresh show cause notice for the contemplated action. He
submitted that if some time bound direction is given, the same may
meet the ends of justice, to which Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner,
under the instructions of Mr. Sukhraj Singhvi, partner of the
petitioner company, who is stated to be present in the Court,
has no objection.
5. In
view of the aforesaid fact situation, the following directions are
issued:
(1) The
Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, shall communicate to the
petitioner within three weeks from today for fixing the date of
hearing. However, in the said communication it will be open to the
Government of India to treat the communication dated 30th
January, 2008 as the show cause notice or to issue a fresh show cause
notice by stating grounds on the basis of which the action, for
resumption of land or on the other aspects of the renewal, is to be
taken.
(2) After
the receipt of the said communication, the petitioner shall file an
appropriate reply within a period of four weeks from the date of
communication thereof.
(3) The
opportunity of hearing shall also be given to the petitioner within a
period of four weeks thereafter and the petitioner shall co-operate
the hearing before the Government of India.
(4) The
appropriate decision shall be taken and the same shall be
communicated to the petitioner by Regd. A.D.Post within a period of
four weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing. Until the
decision is communicated to the petitioner by Regd. A.D.Post, the
status quo as prevailing on today qua construction, title and
possession of the land in question shall be maintained save and
except day to day routine manufacturing and other business activities
of the petitioner company.
6. In
view of the aforesaid directions, the cause of the petitioner writ
would not survive.
7. The
petition is disposed of accordingly.
[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]
jani
Top