2018 (9) TMI 1389 - HC - Companies Law

Public Interest Litigation against the allotment of land admeasuring 40 acres to respondent no.5 (M/s. Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd. Padarth) - Violation to the provisions of the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014 and Action Plan and is in violation to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Held that - In the case in hand, the land has been allotted to the respondent No.5 in accordance with the Rules in force and Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, there is no violation of any policy or statutory right as the Rules referred by the petitioner are for allotment of commercial land and not for the industrial land. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any violation of the Industrial Policy. On completion of the entire statutory procedures the MPAKVN (I) Ltd, executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent No.5 of the said plots No.804, 806 and 807 admeasuring 40 acres (161880 Sq. Mtrs.) and consequently, the possession was handed over to respondent No.5. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in grave abuse of process when two writ petitions seeking similar relief have already been dismissed vide common order dated 17.10.2016. In view of the above discussion, we therefore, of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed with cost of ₹ 10,000/-. The said cost amount, deposited by the petitioner shall be donated in the Government of Kerala, Chief Minister s Distress Relief Fund.

Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of 40 acres of land to M/s. Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd.
2. Alleged violation of M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, and Action Plan.
3. Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Validity of Rule 25(d) and Rule 10.1 of the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015.
5. Allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory land allotment.
6. Environmental concerns and impact on agriculture.
7. Previous dismissals of related Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allotment of 40 Acres of Land to M/s. Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd.:
The petitioner challenged the allotment of 40 acres of land to M/s. Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd., arguing that it was in violation of the relevant rules and policies. The court noted that the allotment was made under the Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, and the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015. The policy aims to promote industrial growth and employment generation, and the allotment to Patanjali was part of this initiative. The court observed that the application for allotment was processed through the established Single Window System and adhered to the transparent procedures outlined in the policy.

2. Alleged Violation of M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, and Action Plan:
The petitioner claimed that the allotment violated the provisions of the rules and policies. The court found that the allotment followed the proper procedures and was in line with the Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014. The policy includes provisions for mega projects, defined as those with an investment of over ?25 crores, and allows for customized assistance packages. Patanjali's project, with an investment of ?500 crores, qualified as a mega project and was thus eligible for the allotment.

3. Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the allotment violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to life, respectively. The court held that the policy and the allotment process were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The allotment was made to promote industrial growth and employment, and there was no evidence of any violation of constitutional provisions.

4. Validity of Rule 25(d) and Rule 10.1 of the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015:
The petitioner challenged the validity of Rule 25(d) and Rule 10.1, claiming they were ultra vires and violated Article 14. The court found that these rules were not applicable to the industrial land allotment in question. Rule 25(d) pertains to residential, commercial, and warehouse plots, not industrial plots. The court did not find any argument or evidence to support the claim that these rules violated Article 14.

5. Allegations of Arbitrary and Discriminatory Land Allotment:
The petitioner alleged that the land allotment was arbitrary and discriminatory, favoring Patanjali. The court noted that the allotment process was transparent and in accordance with the established rules and policies. The land was previously allotted to another company, which withdrew, and the land was then re-allotted to Patanjali following due process.

6. Environmental Concerns and Impact on Agriculture:
The petitioner raised concerns about the environmental impact and the reduction of agricultural land due to industrial development. The court acknowledged these concerns but emphasized that the policy aimed to balance industrial growth with environmental sustainability. The court found no evidence that the allotment to Patanjali would violate environmental regulations or significantly harm agriculture.

7. Previous Dismissals of Related Public Interest Litigations (PILs):
The court noted that this was the second round of litigation on the same issue, with previous PILs dismissed on similar grounds. The earlier petitions were dismissed as they lacked merit and failed to show any violation of statutory rules or policies. The court reiterated that public interest litigation should not be used to challenge economic policies unless there is clear evidence of illegality or constitutional violations.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims made by the petitioner. The allotment of land to M/s. Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd. was found to be in accordance with the relevant rules and policies, and there was no violation of constitutional provisions. The court also imposed a cost of ?10,000 on the petitioner for filing frivolous litigation.

← Previous Next →