2015 (11) TMI 1735 - HC - Indian Laws

Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 - Whether there has been a violation of any of the conditions imposed by the Empowered Committee, which has addressed the application of the petitioner and accorded the approval is examined with reference to the provisions of the Scheme? - Held that - It is evident that the conditions, which are to be met as a precondition for the Automatic Approval Route are not applicable in so far as the Non-Automatic Approval Route is concerned - the Empowered Committee examines the application on a case to case basis and considers the same on merits and thereafter, imposes conditions. There is no condition forthcoming, in the approval granted in favour of the petitioner, relating to restriction of allocation of any extent of industrial area to any one particular unit. Even if the TCS and its several units in the park is considered as a single unit, the prohibition contained in so far as the allocation applicable in respect of the Automatic Approval Route cannot be made applicable to the Non- Automatic Approval Route. It cannot be said that the respondents were justified in withdrawing the approval and in the interest of the country, it would not be advisable to kill a prosperous industry - the action of the respondents was ill-advised and not sustainable. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cancellation of approval under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.
2. Compliance with conditions under the Automatic and Non-Automatic Approval Routes.
3. Alleged violation of the 50% area allocation condition.
4. Classification and independence of units under the umbrella of a single entity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the cancellation of approval under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm and owner of immovable properties, developed an Information Technology Park and applied for establishment under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, initially choosing the "Automatic Route." However, due to non-fulfillment of requirements, the petitioner surrendered the permission and reapplied under the "Non-Automatic Route." The approval was granted, and the park operated since 2006. A show cause notice issued on 27.04.2012 alleged violation of conditions, leading to the cancellation of approval on 14.03.2013. The present petition challenges this cancellation.

2. Compliance with conditions under the Automatic and Non-Automatic Approval Routes:
The Scheme's provisions under paragraphs 5 and 6 outline the Automatic Approval Route, while paragraph 7 addresses the Non-Automatic Route. Paragraph 6(f) restricts any single unit from occupying more than 50% of the allocable industrial area under the Automatic Route. However, paragraph 7(3) for the Non-Automatic Route indicates that each application is considered on a case-by-case basis by an Empowered Committee, which imposes specific conditions. The conditions for the Non-Automatic Route are distinct and not bound by the Automatic Route's criteria.

3. Alleged violation of the 50% area allocation condition:
The impugned order alleged that the petitioner allocated more than 90% of the area to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), violating the 50% area restriction. The petitioner argued that no such condition was imposed under the Non-Automatic Route approval. Furthermore, TCS operated 16 independent units within the park, supported by certificates from various government departments, indicating compliance with the Scheme's requirements.

4. Classification and independence of units under the umbrella of a single entity:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had undertaken not to allocate more than 50% of the area to any one unit and had filed an affidavit to that effect. The respondents contended that the 16 units under TCS were not independent taxable units as required under the Scheme. However, the court examined the Empowered Committee's conditions and found no such restriction in the approval granted to the petitioner. The court noted that the conditions for the Non-Automatic Route differ from those for the Automatic Route, and the respondents' action was counterproductive to the Scheme's objective of encouraging industrial parks.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the conditions for the Automatic Approval Route do not apply to the Non-Automatic Route. The respondents' action to withdraw approval was deemed ill-advised and unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.

Order:
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order stands quashed.