# M/s Dwarka Creations & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2946 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-dwarka-creations-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45272
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
Anuj
Pratap
Singh,
Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi

Petitioners-valid allotties of industrial plot by
the corporation respondent-allotment done on
20.04.2011-possession memo executed on
09.02.2016-entire premium paid-barely after 9
months from possession- notice issued for not
completing construction work within five yearsextension fee of Rs.12,29,859/- charged-fees
paid with some delay-no third party right
created-impugned order rejected renewal of
leas-illegal-quashed-W.P. allowed.

Held, such a situation, therefore, is quite
unhappy one and if Corporation's action in
taking such a coercive measure as is
reflected from the orders passed by the
Corporation from time to time in the present
case is justified, no one will come forward to
believe this Government agency and then it
will be a serious blow to the industrial policy.
(para 10)

## Text

194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A194

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 2946 of 2019

M/s Dwarka Creations & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, Sti Subhendra
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Anuj
Pratap
Singh,
Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi

Petitioners-valid allotties of industrial plot by
the corporation respondent-allotment done on
20.04.2011-possession memo executed on
09.02.2016-entire premium paid-barely after 9
months from possession- notice issued for not
completing construction work within five yearsextension fee of Rs.12,29,859/- charged-fees
paid with some delay-no third party right
created-impugned order rejected renewal of
leas-illegal-quashed-W.P. allowed.

Held, such a situation, therefore, is quite
unhappy one and if Corporation's action in
taking such a coercive measure as is
reflected from the orders passed by the
Corporation from time to time in the present
case is justified, no one will come forward to
believe this Government agency and then it
will be a serious blow to the industrial policy.
(para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners are admittedly
valid allotties of the industrial plot by the
U.P.
State
Industrial
Development
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred
to as 'Corporation') - the 2nd respondent.
The allotment of the plot was done on 20th
April, 2011 and the petitioners claim to
have paid the entire premium amount
between 1st July, 2012 and 1st July, 2017.
Consequently, a registered lease deed
came to be executed on 15th October,
2011. The petitioners' claim was that
though formal possession letter came to be
issued on 10th July, 2012 on account of
serious
opposition
by
the
villagers
blocking the passage to the plot but in the
absence of any clear approach to the plot,
the petitioners could not carry out the
exercise of construction work over the plot
and it is reiterated that virtually there was
no physical possession given of the plot.
Ultimately, the Corporation managed and
facilitated the physical possession of the
plot to the petitioners by executing the
possession memo on 9th February, 2016.
So, the petitioners claim, no project work
could be started prior to 9th February,
2016. However, barely 9 months had
passed the date of physical delivery of the
plot that the respondent Corporation issued
notice to the petitioners for not completing
the construction work/ set up of an
industrial unit within five years as
prescribed for under the allotment order
and it was provided that the petitioners
may apply for extension of time in
accordance with law and terms of
allotment. The petitioners pleaded for
waiver of the extension fee from 2011 to
2016 as he was denied possession for none
of his fault but no heed was paid to his
request and surprisingly a letter was issued
4 All. M/s Dwarka Creations & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
195
 to him on 25th October, 2017 making a
demand of charges to the tune of
Rs.12,29,859/- payment of which was to
be done by 31st December, 2017 failing
which the allotment was liable to be
cancelled. The petitioners treated it to be
an illegal act, on the part of the respondent
Corporation, of charging penalty and,
accordingly represented the matter.

3. Relying upon certain clauses of
the lease deed, the petitioners allege in the
writ petition that they filed earlier a writ
petition bearing Writ-C No.- 5250 of 2018
for quashing the demand note dated 10th
May, 2017 and letter dated 15th May,
2017 that had been issued, to the extent it
provided for cut off date as 31st
December, 2017 and while the matter
came up for hearing on 7th February, 2018
the Corporation informed that vide order
dated 23th January, 2018 the lease itself
has
been
cancelled.
Consequently
petitioner filed another Writ-C No.- 7331
of 2018 in which following order was
passed:-

"Heard Mr. Siddharth Nandan,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Corporation.

This
petition
basically
challenges the order dated 23.01.2018
passed by the respondent Corporation,
cancelling allotment made in favour of
petitioners of industrial plot bearing No.
B-22, IIDC, District Chandauli, on the
ground
that
petitioners
did
not
complete/commence construction of their
industrial unit within 18 months from the
date of possession. Admittedly, possession
was handed over to the petitioners on
9.02.2016. It appears that on 25.10.2017,
the respondent Corporation had issued a
letter to the petitioners, asking them to
deposit a sum of Rs. 12,29,859/- with an
application seeking extension of time to
commence and complete the construction
within time frame. Petitioners did not
make the payment and, hence, the
impugned order has been issued.

Counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, submits that petitioners are
prepared to deposit the amount, as per
letter/order
dated
25.10.2017,
unconditionally
and
the
respondent
Corporation may be directed to consider
their request for restoration of the plot
allotted to them and extend the time to
make construction of industrial unit as per
Additional Condition No.2 in the lease
agreement dated 15.10.2011. Counsel for
the respondent Corporation submits that if
petitioners
make
the
payment,
as
aforementioned,
the
respondent
Corporation shall consider the same and
pass appropriate orders within two weeks
thereafter. His statement is recorded and
accepted. In view thereof, we dispose of
this writ petition with liberty to the
petitioners to make payment of Rs.
12,29,859/- to the respondent Corporation
within a period of 15 days from today. On
such payment being made by petitioners,
the respondent Corporation shall consider
their request and pass appropriate orders
within a period of two weeks thereafter."

4. In view of the directions as
contained
in
the
order
dated
28th
February, 2018 (supra) the petitioners paid
the amount vide demand draft bearing
No.- 335025 (Rs.6,14,930/-) and demand
draft No.-028445 (Rs.6,14,930/-) issued by
the Dena Bank and Bank of India
respectively, alongwith covering letter
dated 11th May, 2018. As it is clear from
the order that the petitioners were to make
payment within a period of 15 days from
the date of the order dated 28th February,
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2018 but the petitioners could pay the
amount only by 11th May, 2018, the
respondent rejected the application of the
petitioners only on the ground that the
petitioners have failed to comply with the
order of the High Court by depositing the
requisite money within a period of 15 days
from the date of order. It is this order dated
13th December, 2018 which has been
impugned. The respondents have declined
to renew the lease only on this above
technical ground that the petitioners failed
to comply with the order of the High Court
within the prescribed period as provided
under the order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has argued that the petitioners have
substantially complied with the order of
the Court and the delay that has been
caused in compliance, on account of the
financial stress for which the petitioners
could not manage the requisite money
within the time specified by the Court. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that no third party rights in
respect of the plot in question has been
created and the petitioners having not only
paid the original premium amount but
even the late fee and renewal charges, they
stand prejudiced for no fault of their
because the actual physical possession
itself had been given to them only in the
year 2016.

6. It is argued that the relevant clause
of the allotment order should be read in
such a manner so as to make it workable
and that too quite sensibly because unless
and until the physical possession of the
land is given and an approach is provided
to the plot, no construction work for
setting up the industrial unit can be carried
out. In the present case, it is submitted that
the respondents have not denied that they
have
not
been
even
delivered
the
possession prior to 9th February, 2016, the
date when possession memo was executed.

7. Per contra, the argument advanced
by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel
for the respondent- Corporation is that it
was the writ petition of the petitioners in
which specific direction was issued and it
would be taken to be an undertaking on his
part otherwise he should have asked for
some time when it was being provided in
the order or he should have moved an
appropriate application seeking extension
of time for its compliance. He submits that
the respondents cannot be taken to be at
fault if the petitioners themselves have not
been vigilant and have failed to comply
themselves with the order passed on their
own writ petition. However, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation does not deny that the plot
still lies vacant and no third party right has
been created in respect of the said plot.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their arguments advanced
across the Bar and having perused the
record, we find that it is one of those cases
where the Court should balance the equity.
It is a case where an industrial plot has
been allotted to a prospective entrepreneur
to set up an industrial unit. U.P. State
Industrial Corporation virtually provides
platform for the entrepreneurs to set up
their industrial units so as to give growth
to the economy of the State as well as of
the Nation. Therefore, the Corporation
should always ensure that a safe and
secured land is provided for setting up an
industrial unit. It is duty of the Corporation
to always ensure that physical possession
of the allotted land is given in time and
lease deed in respect of such plot is
executed
well
within
time.
If
an
4 All. M/s Dwarka Creations & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
197
entrepreneur has come forward to believe
the Corporation that a very safe and
secured land was being provided at a fair
price to set up an industrial unit, if such an
entrepreneur is provided with a disputed
land or a land of which physical
possession is not given for long period of
time then such an entrepreneur cannot be
made to suffer for such misrepresentation
at the end of the Corporation.

9. In the present case there is no
grievance of the Corporation that the
petitioners had been in default towards any
payment schedule and if at all any dues
was there, Corporation was well within its
right to recover the same. But here we find
that while the Corporation itself handed
over the physical possession in February,
2016, strangely enough, it put the
petitioners to notice for not setting up
industrial unit within a year of such
physical possession.

10. In our considered opinion, no
magic can be done to set up an industrial
unit within a span of 10 months or 12
months when the Corporation itself
provided five years time as a condition for
setting up industrial unit in the original
allotment
order.
Such
a
situation,
therefore, is quite unhappy one and if
Corporation's action in taking such a
coercive measure as is reflected from the
orders passed by the Corporation from
time to time in the present case is justified,
no one will come forward to believe this
Government agency and then it will be a
serious blow to the industrial policy. A
Constitutional Court cannot remain a
passive spectator in such a situation. State
run industrial policy is aimed at overall
development of economy with which
public interest is directly related. One must
remember
that
unemployment
in
a
developing economy is of prime concern.
The employment to people is concomitant
to industrial growth. While private players
having huge financial background keep
purchasing vast agricultural fields paying
heavy considerations to poor farmers
resulting in unchecked industries coming
up giving serious jolt to agrarian economy,
the unorganized and unchannelized growth
brings more disparity and small and
marginal industrialists looking forward to
such a State run industrial Corporation
with aspirations, get disappointed with
Corporation failing to provide safe and
secured land and in time delivery of
possession.
It
is
the
duty
of
the
Constitutional Courts to ensure that the
Corporation takes pragmatic view of
overall circumstances and render a helping
hand to see that the purpose with which
Corporation was set up is achieved. In our
considered opinion the case in hand is one
such case.

11. We, therefore, are of the view
that if the petitioners have deposited all the
surcharges including fee for renewal/
extension of time for setting up an
industrial unit, there is full substantial
compliance of the order of High Court.

12. It is true that the time period
provided under the order of High Court
was only 15 days but since no third party
rights have accrued at the end of
Corporation in respect of the plot in
question, we see no justification in
rejecting the claim of the petitioners only
on account of such delayed compliance of
Court's order. The order impugned does
not assign any other reason either.

13. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
orders impugned dated 13th December,
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2018 and 29th December, 2018 are hereby
quashed
in
the
special
facts
and
circumstances of the case.

14. The respondents are directed to
consider the application for extension of
time and renewal of the lease as the
petitioners have already deposited the
renewal amount as per the demand notice
on 25th October, 2017 and positive
direction be issued, positively within a
period six weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2020)02ILR A198

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 4975 of 2001
Connected With
Writ C Cases No. 4976 of 2001, 20683 of 2001
& 20684 of 2001

U.P. State & Sugar Development Corp.
Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Srivastava, Sri Shakti Swarup
Nigam, Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri P.C. Singh, Sri Santosh K.
Srivastava,
Sri
Sumitra
Singh,
Sri
Bhoopendra Nath Singh

Industrial
dispute-impugned
order-no
finding that workmen have worked for certain
crushing
seasons-and
completed
their
probationary period under clause B-1(4) of
Standing orders-Labour Court could not have
granted seasonal status-impugned order illegalfindings cannot be recorded -under Article 226being facts-impugned orders quashed-W.P.
partly allowed.

Cases cited:

1. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753

2. A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies
[(2004) 7 SCC 112 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 918]

3. State of U.P. v. NeerajAwasthi [(2006) 1
SCC 667 :2006 SCC (L&S) 190]

4. State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen
Employees' Welfare Assn. [(2006) 1 SCC
567 : 2006 SCC (L&S)158 : JT (2006) 1 SC
84]

5. Union Public Service Commission v.
GirishJayantiLalVaghela [(2006) 2 SCC 482:
2006SCC (L&S) 339 : (2006) 2 Scale 115]

6. KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala
[(1973) 4 SCC 225 : 1973 Supp SCR 1]

7. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(2000)
1 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1 : 1999 Supp
(5) SCR 229]

8. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs.
Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408 : (2007) 1 SCC
(L&S) 270

9. Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. of
Police [AIR 2005 Mad 1]

10. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]

11. Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. v.
Digambara Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 262 : 2004
SCC (L&S) 1097

12. BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 :
2014 (140) FLR 901 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)
373

13.
Chandra
Shekhar
Azad
KrishiEvamProdyogikiVishwavidyalaya
vs.
United Trades Congress, (2008) 2 SCC 552 :
(2008)
1
SCC
(L&S)
504