9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3-8-2006 (Annexure 28 to the writ petition) cancelling letter of allotment/letter of permission (for short LOA/LOP ) and dated 21-8-2006 (Annexure 27) declining to extend the validity of LOA/LOP. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner, M/s. Microcomm India Limited, in order to set up an export oriented unit at Noida Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as SEZ ), applied for LOA/LOP to Development Commissioner, Government of India in the light of Government policy notified for export and import for the period 2002-2007 by creating SEZ. The Development Commissioner vide letter dated 28-7-2003 granted permission subject to certain conditions as contained in paragraphs 2 to 8 thereof which are reproduced as under : 2 The above permission is subject to the conditions stipulated in Annexure in addition to the following conditions :- (i) The unit shall export its entire production, excluding rejects and sales in the domestic tariff area as per provisions of SEZ scheme for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. For this purpose the unit shall f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts validity if required may be addressed to the Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, Noida (U.P.) 4. Para 3 of the said letter thus made it clear that the said LOA/LOP granted was valid for one year from the date of issuance thereof. It is said that agreement (Annexure 5) was also executed by the petitioner on 19-11-2003 with the Union of India acting through Development Commissioner. The petitioner was allotted plots no. 129-B and 129-C in the aforesaid SEZ for installation of his industrial unit and got possession thereof on 19-11-2003 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). However, the petitioner could not commence his production and, in fact, could not even start construction of building within the validity period of LOA/LOP and, therefore, sought extension thereof vide application dated 25-8-2004 followed by a reminder dated 15-9-2004 whereupon the said period was extended upto 27-7-2005 vide letter dated 21-9-2004. A copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. In respect to plots allotted to him petitioner also executed sub-lease agreement with Government of India through Development Commissioner on 15-10-2004 (Anenxure 12 to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat some construction has already been made and the he is likely to complete First Phase of his building by the end of February 2007 whereafter full level production will commence in March 2007 and sought extension of validity period of LOA/LOP accordingly. 6. It is, however, not disputed that though the period of LOA/LOP was not extended after 7th April, 2006, the petitioner applied for extension thereof only on 10-8-2006. In the meantime, by order dated 3-8-2006 the Assistant Development Commissioner cancelled LOA/LOP dated 28-7-2003, and subsequently by order dated 21-8-2006 the petitioner was informed that his letter dated 10-8-2006 requesting for extension of time cannot be granted inasmuch as, Development Commissioner himself visited the spot on 17-8-2006 and found progress of work unsatisfactory and that not even 10% work was found complete. It is against these two orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that before passing the impugned order dated 3-8-2006 no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the impugned order is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. On behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 detailed counter aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pass the impugned orders without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. In the facts of this case in our view principles of legitimate expectation are clearly attracted as the petitioner would have been justified in proceeding with the understanding that no order adverse to him would be passed without giving opportunity to show cause to it. In the past also, the respondents though issued notices from time to time but ultimately extended the period of validity of period of LOA/LOP and, therefore, the petitioner would have been justified in expecting this time also that before passing any order adverse to his interest, the competent authority shall afford opportunity to the petitioner which has not been done as a matter of fact. Moreover, even in August 2006 the respondents were not averse against the petitioner to grant him further extension as is evident from the letter dated 21-8-2006 wherein it has been stated that the Development Commissioner himself visited the spot on 17th August 2006 and found progress of work unsatisfactory and not even 10%. That being so, it was all the more necessary on the part of the authorities to apprise the petitioner of this inspecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edural in character based on requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as consequence of promise made or promise established. Briefly, it can be said that a person is said to have legitimate expectation of a particular treatment if any right or promise is made by a party, either expressly or impliedly or if regular and consistent past practice of the authority had given room for such expectation in normal course. As a ground for relief the efficacy of this doctrine though vague, as it may be positioned just above fairness in action but far below the promissory estoppel . However, it may entitle an expectation of an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed or to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the Court may direct the decision making authority to follow such procedure before taking an action otherwise. In the present case, as we have already noticed, after expiry of last extended period of 2006, i.e., 7-4-2006, the respondents have not been able to show that any notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. 12. In the result, we have no hesitation in holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
