2020 (4) TMI 46 - HC - Customs

SEZ unit - Extension/renewal of Letter of Approval of the existing plastic recycling unit - HELD THAT - When the decision of the Board of Approval has been set aside and this court has allowed the request of the petitioner for renewal of the Letter of Approval for a period of one year; there was no question of then placing the matter for consideration of the Board of Approval inasmuch as the directions issued by this court had to be followed by the Development Commissioner, KASEZ by issuing the formal letter of renewal of the petitioners Letter of Approval for extension of recycling of plastic waste and scrap. Therefore, the stand adopted by the opponent No.3, Development Commissioner, for not complying with the above directions issued by this court appears to be an attempt to delay the implementation of the order and is in flagrant disregard of directions issued by this court. The opponent No.3 Development Commissioner, KASEZ has, for totally unjustified reasons, not complied with the directions issued by this court - the opponent No.3, Development Commissioner, is directed to forthwith renew and issue a formal Letter of Approval. Stand over to 07.02.2020.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with court directions regarding renewal of Letter of Approval for plastic recycling unit.

Analysis:
The matter involved a petition where the court had previously issued directions for the renewal of a Letter of Approval for a plastic recycling unit. The opponents had failed to comply with the court's order, leading to a further hearing. The opponents had filed a special leave petition which was ultimately dismissed. The court noted that the concerned authority for renewal was the Board of Approval, which was scheduled to consider the matter in an upcoming meeting. However, the court emphasized that since the decision of the Board of Approval had been set aside and the court had already allowed the renewal, there was no need for further consideration by the Board. The opponents' delay in compliance was viewed as an attempt to stall the implementation of the court's order.

The court reiterated that it had already granted the renewal of the Letter of Approval and that the Development Commissioner needed to issue the formal letter for the extension of the plastic recycling unit. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the opponent's unjustified non-compliance with its directions. Despite granting an opportunity for compliance, the court warned of consequences if the directions were not followed promptly. The Development Commissioner was directed to renew and issue the formal Letter of Approval as per the court's previous judgment by a specified deadline. Failure to comply would result in necessary action for non-compliance and potential exemplary costs.

In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to its orders and directed the Development Commissioner to renew the Letter of Approval promptly. The case was adjourned for further proceedings, with direct service permitted for the upcoming hearing date.