Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/144/1999 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 144 of
1999
=========================================================
SHREENATH
MARBLES - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ SHASTRI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RITURAJ M MEENA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner
was allotted a plot bearing No. RIDC.5/1/2 at G.I.D.C., Ambaji, by
the respondent No.1, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
Limited (‘GIDC’ for short), in the year 1993. By the impugned
communication dated 31.12.1998, GIDC ordered the petitioner to evict
the said plot, within ten days.
2. This Court, on
11.01.1999, while issuing notice, granted ad-interim-relief in terms
of Para-16(B) and thereby protected the possession of the petitioner.
Thereafter, on 26.07.2000, while issuing rule and confirming the
ad-interim-relief granted previously, it was provided that the
petitioner shall pay balance amount towards the price of the plot,
on, or before 30.09.2000.
3. I have heard learned
Counsel for the parties.
4. It appears that the
prime concern of the GIDC is that the petitioner, at the relevant
point of time, did not pay the full price of the plot. During the
pendency of the petition, therefore, substantial amount has remained
outstanding, which was legally due and payable. The learned Counsel
for the GIDC relied on Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 11.11.2009, filed
by one Shri. V.K. Patel, Regional Manager, GIDC, in which it is
stated that, as on 31.10.2009, the petitioner has to pay
Rs.3,75,094/-.
5. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing
to pay all the legal dues. However, GIDC never supplied to the
petitioner, the calculations for arriving at the said figure. He,
however, did not dispute that some amount is due and payable to the
petitioner.
6. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner has established a small-scale industry, on the
said plot, way back in the year 1993, which is functioning till date.
7. Under the
circumstances, the impugned communication dated 31.12.1998 is set
aside. This petition is DISPOSED of, with the following
directions:
(1) The petitioner
shall deposit a sum of RS.2,00,000/-(TWO LACS), latest
by 31ST DECEMBER, 2010
with the GIDC. The GIDC, by the said date, shall SUPPLY
to the petitioner, the CALCULATIONS of the outstanding
dues with interest.
(2) Within TWO
MONTHS, from the date of receipt of such calculations, the
petitioner shall DEPOSIT with the GIDC, the reaming
amount, after giving a credit of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two Lacs), if he has
already deposited the same with the GIDC.
8. It is clarified
that, even if the petitioner has any DISPUTE about such
calculations supplied by the GIDC, and though, it will be open for
him to raise OBJECTIONS with the GIDC and to take legal
recourse thereafter, in the first instance, he shall make FULL
DEPOSIT, even under protest. Direct
service is permitted.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top