2000 (8) TMI 1086 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of Change of Land Use (CLU) Certificate for Eligibility Certificate.
2. Jurisdiction and Authority of Higher Level Screening Committee (HLSC) to Review Decisions.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
4. Validity of Decisions Based on Non-Existent Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Change of Land Use (CLU) Certificate for Eligibility Certificate:
The petitioners argued that the 1975 Rules do not mandate the production of a CLU certificate as a prerequisite for granting an eligibility certificate. They contended that the LLSC and HLSC's decisions to reject their applications/appeals on this basis should be declared illegal. The court examined Section 13B of the 1973 Act and Rule 28A(5) of the 1975 Rules, concluding that Form ST-70, which includes the CLU certificate requirement, is an integral part of the 1975 Rules. The court held that non-compliance with the conditions in Form ST-70 can justify the rejection of an application, emphasizing the importance of balancing industrial development with regulated land use to prevent misuse of agricultural land.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of Higher Level Screening Committee (HLSC) to Review Decisions:
The petitioners asserted that the HLSC lacked jurisdiction to review its decision from the 57th meeting held on March 19, 1999, and that no adverse decision could be taken without notice and a hearing. The court noted that while a decision favorable to the petitioners might have been taken in the 57th meeting, it did not materialize into an official order. Consequently, the petitioners could not rely on it for relief. The court referenced the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that an unissued decision cannot be the basis for mandamus.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found that the HLSC's decision in the 58th meeting held on July 1, 1999, violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before their appeals were rejected. The court highlighted that the rule of audi alteram partem, an integral part of natural justice, was breached. The court also noted that the decision to reconsider the matter was influenced by the Chief Minister's view, further indicating arbitrariness in the process.

4. Validity of Decisions Based on Non-Existent Rules:
The court observed that the HLSC's decision to reject the appeals was partly justified by Rule 28B of the 1975 Rules, which was not in existence at the time of the appeals' consideration. This reliance on a non-existent rule further vitiated the decision, adding to the arbitrariness and illegality of the HLSC's actions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the HLSC's decision in the 58th meeting held on July 1, 1999, illegal and quashing it. The court directed that the appeals filed by the petitioners be heard afresh by the newly constituted HLSC, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The court mandated that the appeals be decided within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order. Copies of the order were to be provided urgently upon payment of the prescribed fee.