2017 (1) TMI 1800 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of communication dated 5.1.2017 issued by the Chief Operating Officer of the 2nd respondent - non-grant of permission to continue the warehousing activity being carried out by the Corporation - non-issuance of gate passes for transportation and storage of food grains to and from the warehouse - Rule 11(5) and Rule 11(7) of the SEZ Rules - HELD THAT - In the communication dated 5th January 2007, reference is made to Rule 11(5) and Rule 11(7) of the SEZ Rules, applicability or otherwise of the said Rules is a matter which is required to be considered in the petition pending before the learned single Judge. As it is the case of the appellant that since 2005, the appellant- Corporation is using the leased area after making constructions for storage and for transportation of food grains, if abruptly they are stopped from using the same, public interest will suffer. In view of the same, by way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to allow the appellant-Corporation to carry out the activity of storing and transportation of their commodities in and from the warehouse. The respondents are further directed to issue necessary gate passes for transportation till the next date of hearing.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of communication dated 5.1.2017 issued by the Chief Operating Officer of the 2nd respondent regarding warehousing activity and gate passes under SEZ Rules.

Analysis:
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a single Judge in a Special Civil Application. The challenge in the writ-petition is directed towards the communication issued by the Chief Operating Officer of the 2nd respondent on 5.1.2017. This communication conveyed the decision not to permit the continuation of warehousing activity by the appellant-Corporation and the refusal to issue gate passes for transportation and storage of food grains. The appellant contends that they have been using the leased area for storing food grains since 2005, and the sudden halt in operations would negatively impact public interest. The communication makes reference to Rule 11(5) and Rule 11(7) of the SEZ Rules, the applicability of which is a crucial aspect to be considered in the ongoing petition before the single Judge.

The primary contention revolves around the appellant's claim of using the leased area for warehousing activities since 2005, even before the SEZ Act notification. The appellant argues that stopping their operations abruptly would harm public interest. Therefore, as an interim measure, the court directed the respondents to allow the appellant-Corporation to continue their storage and transportation activities in the warehouse. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to issue necessary gate passes for transportation until the next hearing date. This interim relief was granted to prevent any immediate adverse effects on the appellant's operations and public interest.

The Judges, the Chief Justice Mr. R.Subhash Reddy and Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, ordered for the notice to be returnable on 23rd January 2017, indicating the timeline for further proceedings in the case. The oral order highlights the urgency and significance of the matter at hand, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution. The detailed analysis of the communication, SEZ Rules, and the appellant's arguments sets the stage for a thorough examination of the legal issues involved in the case.