Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1574/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1574 of 2010
=========================================================
JAIPRAKASH
ASSOCIATES LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 25/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the direction to the
respondent-State to extend the benefits of the Incentive Scheme 2001
for economic development of Kutch District condoning delay in
commencement of commercial production. The petitioner has also,
alternatively, prayed for extension of the date for commencement of
commercial production under Incentive Scheme 2001 for economic
development of Kutch District.
2. Heard
Mr.K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Ms.Maithily D. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on advance copy being served to the Government Pleader’s
Office. During the course of hearing of this petition, it transpires
that the petitioner has made the representation to the Industries
Commissioner, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar on 25.02.2008. The
petitioner has also issued the communication dated 26.03.2009 to
Industries Commissioner. In respect of the pendency of the
petitioner’s representation, Ms.Mehta states that the petitioner’s
representation would be decided within one month from today.
3. Since,
the representation is pending and it is stated to have been decided
within one month from today, we are not going into the merits of the
matter nor we are expressing any opinion. We are, therefore,
disposing of this petition recording the submission of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader and expecting the respondent-State to
decide the petitioner’s representation within one month from today.
We are, however, making it clear that before deciding this
representation, an opportunity of being heard be given to the
petitioner and it is open to the petitioner to lead all necessary
documents or to make submission for this representation in support of
its claim. We are also making it clear that if the representation is
decided against the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to challenge the decision of the respondent authorities
on the petitioner’s representation before an appropriate Forum.
4. Ms.Mehta
submits that if the petitioner would submit the documents and/or make
further representation in that case, some more time will be required
to decide the representation. Mr.Nanavati has submitted that the
petitioner will file within one week from today, the further
representation along with all other supporting details and materials.
If that be so, the respondent-State shall decide such representation
within one month from the date of receipt thereof.
5. With
this direction and observation, this petition is, accordingly,
disposed of.
(K.A.Puj,J.)
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J.)
rakesh/
Top