Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6644/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6644 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6645 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6646 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6647 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6648 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6649 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6650 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6667 of 2010
=========================================================
M/S
MERIDIAN SHIPPING AGENCY PVT LTD, DIVISION NAMED TRANS -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK P MODH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 10/06/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned counsel Mr.Vikram S. Nandkani, for Mr.Hardik P. Modh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pankaj Champaneri, learned
Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of Union of India.
It
is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the
petitioners are Container Freight Station (CFS) as defined
under Rule-2(s) of the Special Economic Rules, 2006 (for short
Rules ). That Unit is defined under Section 2(zc) of the
Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (for short Act ). Even,
Developer is also defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. It is
further submitted that Rule 19(3) of the Rules will be applicable in
case of Unit and further as provided under Rule 11(8) of the
Rules, the petitioners have created only infrastructural facility
for use by the prospective Units. In addition to above, it is
submitted that the petitioners have already submitted their reply to
the notice which was issued in the year 2008 and even on 10.05.2010
also they have approached the concerned Ministry to seek details
about the meeting and the outcome, which took place between the
Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Revenue, to which the
petitioner had no opportunity to represent a case. However, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the
petitioners are ready and willing to comply with any instruction/
order issued in accordance with law by Ministry of Commerce/
Ministry of Revenue of Union of India. Therefore, at this stage if
the impugned orders are allowed to be implemented, activities of the
petitioners will come to stand still. It is therefore prayed that
pending admission of the cases, further, implementation, operation
and execution of the orders be stayed.
Mr.Pankaj
Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India
relied on provision of Section 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Act and
submitted that as provided under Section 12(3) of the Act,
Development Commissioner can exercise administrative control and
supervision over officers and employees appointed under Section
11(2) and has got wide powers. Learned Assistant Solicitor General
has also relied on Rule 11(1)(5)(6) and submitted that valid letter
of approval is necessary as required under Rule 19(3) of the Rules.
It is further submitted that he would like to seek detailed
instructions and file affidavit-in-reply with regard to the specific
contention in the petition for challenging impugned orders.
Considering
the above submissions and provisions of the Act and Rules relied on
by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, the petitioners,
who have been permitted to function as Container Freight Station
(CFS) since 2008 onwards and the Department of Customs has issued
notification for the purpose of Customs Act. Besides, reply/
representation submitted by the petitioners as early as in 2008, is
not decided and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners,
they are ready and willing to comply with any lawful instruction/
order of the Authority under the Act.
Issue
notice to respondents, returnable on 23.06.2010. Meanwhile,
ad-interim relief is granted by staying operation of impugned orders
dated 19.05.2010 and 02.06.2010 till then in each of the petitions.
Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
..mitesh..
Top