9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of the High Court, after considering the submissions and the material on record came to the conclusion that the writ petitions were without any merit and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, these twelve appeals have been preferred. 3. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts of Civil Appeal No.8985 of 2013, which are briefly stated hereunder: (i) Madhya Pradesh Rajya Setu Nirman Nigam Ltd. MPRSNN, (respondent no.3) is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 01.02.2001, authorized MPRSNN for reconstruction, strengthening, widening and rehabilitation of a section of road on Satna-Maihar-Parasimod-Umaria Road Project to be executed through Concession on Build, Operate and Transfer Scheme. (ii) MPRSNN, vide Advertisement dated 22.04.2002, invited tenders against the aforesaid project pursuant to which the bid of the appellant was accepted. On 8th August, 2002, Letter of Acceptance was issued by the MPRSNN to the appellant for execution of the Concession Agreement within 30 days. (iii) The IS Act was amended in the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Amendment Act No.12 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in nine (9) appeals and other learned counsels appearing for the appellants in the other three (3) appeals and Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of the respondents. 5. Before we proceed further with the submissions, it would be relevant to refer to three other dates which have been referred to by Shri Dave in support of his submissions on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. According to Shri Dave, after the tender was invited vide Advertisement dated 22nd April, 2002, the Chief Secretary issued a Clarification dated 01.07.2002 with respect to the agreements executed under BOT Scheme stating that stamp duty would not be payable on such agreements in the State of Madhya Pradesh also and further reiterating that in order to avoid any doubts to be raised in future, it is necessary to clarify that no stamp duty shall be payable on the agreements being executed under BOT Scheme. A further clarification was issued vide letter dated 21.07.2002 by the Chief Secretary of the State with respect to the Resolution dated 01.07.2002, that no stamp dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following judgments: (1) Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society Vs. Union of India; (1992) Supp.1 SCR 709 (2) Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1992) Supp.2 SCR 322; (3) The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Brahmputra Metallies Ltd. Ranchi and Anr (2020) 14 SCR 45.; (4) State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Shyama Nandan Mishra (2022) 11 SCR 1136; (5) M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2022) 13 SCR 592; 9. Shri Dave, learned Senior Counsel next submitted that the insertion of proviso (c) to Clause(C) under Article 33 of Schedule 1-A by the 2002 Amendment Act was ultra vires as it violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the said amendment was illegal, arbitrary and bad in law as it nullified the promise made by the Chief Secretary, vide Circular dated 01.07.2002, and has taken away the vested right of the appellants of not factoring in 2% stamp duty and ultimately resulting into a demand of a huge amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- (Rupees one crore eight lakhs) approximately. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following two judgments: (1) State of Gujarat and another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and respondent no.3 are equal stake holders and, as such, the unilateral imposition of 2% stamp duty of the entire project cost on the appellant was illegal and unwarranted. He has further criticised the judgment of the Collector (Stamps), Bhopal whereby he held that the total project cost was Rs.110 crores whereas actually it was 54 crores, out of which, MPRSNN (respondent no.3) had granted subsidy and invested Rs.29.10 crores and the remaining Rs.24.90 crores, was invested by the appellant. As such, even if he was liable to pay 2% stamp duty, the amount would be much less, approximately Rs.48 lakhs and odd and not Rs.1.08 crores, which was 2% stamp duty on the entire project cost. 14. The last argument raised is that once the IS Act had been re-amended on 10th March, 2008, the earlier Amendment of 2002 should be held to be illegal and arbitrary. On such submissions, Shri Dave, learned senior counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders imposing deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.1.08 crores. 15. On the other hand, Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh representing all the three respondents i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the submission relating to Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation are unwarranted and without any merit, inasmuch as, prior to the execution of the concession agreement, the amendment had been brought in. The communication by the Chief Secretary cannot have any overriding effect over the statutory amendments brought in by the State legislature. It is also submitted that there can be no Legitimate Expectation or application of Promissory Estoppel against statute. It is also submitted that the State was fully competent to carry out the amendments. It was next submitted that as the 2002 amendment had been reversed in 2008, cannot by itself draw any kind of presumption that 2002 amendment was illegal. It was submitted that the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 18. Having considered the submissions advanced and having perused the material on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the judgment of the High Court impugned in these appeals does not require any interference. We do not find any infirmity, much less any perversity warranting any interference by this Court. The High Court has dealt with all aspects of the matter considering not only the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied if justified by a significant public necessity. The Court also highlighted that in matters of policy change, the judiciary typically refrains from interfering, unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or not in public interest. 21. The judgment in Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors ( 2006 ) 8 SCC 381. defines legitimate expectation as an expectation of a benefit, relief, or remedy that arises from a promise or established practice through administrative, executive or legislative action. This expectation must be reasonable, logical, and valid; but it in no way vests any enforceable legal right. The doctrine does not elevate legitimate expectation to the level of a right enforceable by law. Instead, it is a procedural concept that demands fairness in administrative action. When an expectation is deemed legitimate, it may entitle the individual to a chance to show cause before the expectation is denied or to receive an explanation for the denial. However, legitimate expectation does not always result in relief, particularly when public interest, policy changes, or other valid reasons justify the deviation from the expected course of action. 22. The decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard, observed thus (SCC pp. 414-415, para 68) "68. A common thread in all these judgments that could be noticed is that all these judgments consistently hold that there can be no estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions. The Constitution Bench in the case of M. Ramanatha Pillai (supra) has approved the view in American Jurisprudence that the doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity. It further held that the only exception with regard to applicability of the doctrine of estoppel is where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The analysis of all the judgments of this Court on the issue would reveal that it is a consistent view of this Court, reiterated again in Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (supra), that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions." 25. In light of the observations made by this Court in the above cited judgments and several others, it is an evident position of law that a prior executive decision does not bar the State legislature from enacting a law or framing any policy contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease are fulfilled. In the present case, we need not reiterate and repeat the same reasoning and findings as given by the High Court in great detail after considering the various clauses of the Concession Agreement. We uphold the finding of the High Court to be clearly justified and based upon a clear understanding of the terms of the concession agreement. We do not find any perversity at all in the reasoning given by the High Court to uphold the Concession Agreement to be a lease. 29. After the judgment of the High Court which is of the year 2010, two further judgments have been delivered by this Court regarding interpretation of a lease, which have been relied upon by Shri Mishra on behalf of the respondents. Out of the three judgments relied upon by Shri Mishra, the judgment in the case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (supra) has already been considered by the High Court. Further, the judgments in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others (supra) and in the case of Nasiruddin and another (supra) further reiterated the view taken by Associated Hotel of India Ltd. (supra). Paragraph 17 in the case of Nasiruddin and another (supra) is reproduced hereunder: "17. The expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not entering into this issue of what is the amount spent but we require that this be determined by the Collector (Stamps) / Revenue Officer of the concerned district. 34. Once, the stamp duty is payable on the amount spent by the lessee, the demand raised on the whole amount would be unjustified, as such, to the above extent, the demand needs to be set aside with a further direction to the Revenue Officer/Collector (Stamps) of the district concerned to re-calculate the same as observed above and, accordingly, raise the demand. In case, the appellants have deposited the demand raised on the entire project cost then the amount lying in excess with the State would be refunded to them. However, in case of any deficit in stamp duty having not been deposited, the appellants would deposit the same within two months of the fresh demand being raised by the Revenue Officer/Collector (Stamps) of the district concerned. The Collector (Stamps)/Revenue Officer is further directed to calculate the said amount in each of the cases individually and communicate the same to the appellants within a period of two months from today and where the amount is lying in excess with the State, the same s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
