WA/462/2008 of B.SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, DOMALGUDA, HYDERABAD Vs THE GOVT OF AP.,INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, AND 2 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

ftjl5ii\i1l[ [3377 ]]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

rrltFRIDAY HE TWENry NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWb THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

flPRESENTlITHE HO$BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHEANDTHE HON'[t]BLE SRIJUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMARWRIJ#$PEAL NO.461 AND 462 OF 2OO8

i,

JffioF 2008

WRIT APPEAL N

Writ Appeal ,naer cfJuJelf 5 of the Letters [Patent against ][the order dated ][30-11-]

ll

ll2OO7 in W.P.No.7619 of 2006 on the file of [the ][High Court.]

,ifi$1l+

1l+

Between:

jl ,

,1. B.Satish Kumar Gupta, [(died ][per LRs ][Appellant ][Nos.2 ][to ][4)]

2. Smt Prabha Rani Gupta, Wo Late [Sri Satish ][Kumar ][Gupta'Aged about ][73]Years Occ: HousewifeYears Occ: Housewife

3. Vinay KumarGupta, [S/o ][Late ][Sri ][Satish Kumar Gupta ][Aged ][about 55 ][Years]Occ: Business 1. [,9.]Occ: Business 1. [,9.]

4. Sanjeev fumarlctipta, S/o [Late ][Sri ][Satish Kumar Gupta ][Aged ][about ][50 ][Years]Occ: Business 'tr lErrOcc: Business 'tr lErr All are Rl/o.Flafl'fffi.ro+, Mohini [Mansion, ][H.No.1-2-18, Gaganmahal ][Road,]Domalguda, HYderabad.Domalguda, HYderabad.

Appellant Nos. 2 t8'4 are brought on [record as LRs of deceased Appellant ][No.]1 ['ds ]per Court Order dated [11.O4.2022 ][Vide ][l.A.No-1 ][ot ][2022 ][in W.A.No.461]

of 2008

i1

l[ ffii...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

AND

rl. I1 . Government ofAhOnra Pradesh, rep. by [its ][Secretary, lndustries ][and]Commerce Department, [Secretariat, ][Hyderabad]Commerce Department, [Secretariat, ][Hyderabad]

2Commissioner [,lbilt ]tnAr"tri". and [Competent ][Authority, ][Andhra ][Pradesh,]Azamabad lnddstrial [Area, ][Chirag Ali Lane Hyderabad]Azamabad lnddstrial [Area, ][Chirag Ali Lane Hyderabad]3Praja Shakti Slnhi S"..tf,a, [rep. by its ][Authorised, ][Signatory, ][RTC ][Cross]Roads, Hyderabad [.]Roads, Hyderabad [.]

t

r*

4Andhra ustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd., rep. by itsManaging ",.,o"lnIi"oDirectol, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, HyderabadManaging ",.,o"lnIi"oDirectol, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5Municipat corpf,,tf;onof Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, B.R.K.R.Bhavan, Tank Bur1d, HyderabadBhavan, Tank Bur1d, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS

,J

Counsel for the Ap

: SRI V. HARI HARAN

Counsel for ttre ResJo,[a"n, tto.. 1 & 2: GP FOR TNDUSTRTES & COMMERCE

counset ror tre nesJolaent No.3: SRI N.S. ARJUN KUMAR

SRI V. MALLIK

Counsel for the ResRescounsel ro. tne nesfo,la[l"f]

Counsel for the ResResent No.4: SRI K. V. SIMHADRI

ent No.5: M/s. KALPANA EKBOTE,S.C. FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

ffilT APPEAL NO: 462 OF 2008

Writ Appeal ,nd.r. "'lrff 15 of the Lefters [patent ]fited against the order dated 30.11.2oo7in w.p.r.ro]zJro 7 of 2oolon the fite of the High Court.

$,i

Between:

l

l'1. B.Satish Kumald[0"B.Satish Kumald[0"

'1. B.Satish Kumald[0"(Died per LRs Appellant Nos. 2 to 4)B.Satish Kumald[0"(Died per LRs Appellant Nos. 2 to 4)2. 9mt.Prabha RaniirGupta, Wo Late Sri Satish Kumar Gupta, Aged about 73Years Occ: HousewifeYears Occ: Housewife

3. Vinay_Kumar Gupia, S/o Late Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Aged about 55 yearsOcc: Business iOcc: Business i

4. Sanje{"v Kumar Gupta, IS/o Late Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Aged about 50 YearsOcc: Business rOcc: Business r i All are R/o. FlatrrNo.104, Mohini Mansion, H.No.1-2-lS,Gaganmahal RoadDomalguda Hyderabad.

Appellant Nos.2ld 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant No.1 as per Court Order dated'11.04.2022 Yide LA.No.1 of 2022 in \A/.A.No.462of 2008

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

AND

1The Govemmeof Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, lndustries &Commerce (lF C) [Department, ][Secretariat, ][Hyderabad]Commerce (lF C) [Department, ][Secretariat, ][Hyderabad]

2. The CommissiJnJ. of lndustries and Competent Authority, Andhra Pradesh,Azamabad lndustrial Area, Chirag Ali Lane, HyderabadrIAzamabad lndustrial Area, Chirag Ali Lane, HyderabadrI

3. Praja Shakti Sahiti Samstha, rep.by its Authorised Signatory, RTC CrossRoads, HyderabadRoads, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI V. HARI HARAN

ICounsel for the Resporident Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCEr' ih;i Counsel for the ResfbJtdent No.e: SRI N.S. ARJUN KUMARSRIV. MALLIK

rhe court."o",n" ffffi*

ing: COMMON JUDGMENT

lE;t:l1tI'iIiltl:; lEriiiiffiiiiB{.I lF:Fi, ffi.iIF

iir[tirllltittt:*rItIIiIiiir

THE HON'BLE THE [C][HIEF ][JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE]ANDTIIE HON'BLE SRI JU[STICE ][N.V.S][HRAV][AN ][KUMAR]

Writ Appeal Nos.461 [an][d,462 ][of2OOB]

coMMON JUDGMENT: 6'er [rrre ][ao ][n'ble ][Sd ][JusticeN ][V ][Shtauan Kumar)]

These intra cotrt [appeals ][are filed ][against ][the]common order dated [13.ll.2OO7 ][in ][W ][P'No'25167 of ][2OO5]and, 7619 of 2006. [The ][said ][writ ][petitions ][were disposed ][of]by common ordcr [in ][view ][of ][commonality ][of ][the ][parties ][ald]matter [as ][well. ][The ][petitioner ][in ][both the ][Writ]also subject petitions had filed the [present ][writ ][appeals' Since' ][the]petitioner / appellant [died, ][his ][legal ][heirs were brought ][on]record as appellant [Nos.2 ][to ][4 ][in ][both ][the ][writ ][appeals' ][The]Nos. I [to ][3 ][in ][W.A.No ]'462 [of ][2OO8 ][were ][shown]respondent as respondent [Nos.1 ][to 3 ][in ][W.A.No ][46 ][1 ][of ][2OO8 ][and apart]from these parties, [A.P'Industrial ][Infrastructure]Corporation Ltd., [represented ][by ][its ][Managing ][Director ][was]shown as respondent [No.4 ][and ][the Municipal ][Corporation]of Hyderabad, [represented ][by ][its ][Commissioner was ][shown]as respondent [No.5 ][in ][W.A.No.46 ][1 of ][2OO8']

2. W.p.No.25l67 of 2005 was filed questroning the action of respondent No. I contained in MemoNo'14701/tF-.ELL/Ar/2005 dated 29.ro.2oos and theorder of respondent No.2 in Lr.No.13/ t /2OO4loo25/0025/FD ilated o1.or.2oo4 rejecting the ciaim of thepetitioner for grant of leasehold / freehold rights over theindustrial plot bearing No.21/ 1 by deeming that thepetitioner has been in continuing lessee as on the datewhen the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination andRegulation of Leases) Act, 7992 and the provisions of theamendment to the said acts and also to declare thecancellation of leasehold rights of the petitioner containedin the order of respondent No. 1 in G.o.Ms.No.225 dated23.O3.1990 and arbitrarSz and illegal.

3. W.P.No.76 19 of 2006 was filed questioning the action of respondent in selling plot no.2l /1 of AzarnabadIndustrial Area, Hyderabad to respondent No.3 underregistered sale deed bearing Doc.No.3g04/2005 datedregistered sale deed bearing Doc.No.3g04/2005 dated23.11.2OO5 ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitionerfor fresh lease of the industrial plot and to directfor fresh lease of the industrial plot and to directrespondent No.2\to grant leasehold / freehold rights of the said plot in favour of the appeliant / [petitioner]contemplated by the [provisions ]of [Azamabad ][Industrial]Area (Termination and Regulation [of ][Leases) ][Act, 1992']

4. In both the writ appeals, [since the pleadings of ][the]parties are common, these writ [appeals ][are ][disposed ][of ][by]a common order.

5. The brief facts of [the ][case ][are ][that ][the ][father ][of ][the]appellant / petitioner one [S'Bhagatram ][Gupta, ][the]Managing Director of M/s.S.B.Ram [a-nd ][Company ][was ][an]industrial concern manufacturing [readymade ][garments]and his father obtained [leased ][out industrial ][plot ][bearing]No.21/ 1 admeasuring [Ac.1.137 ][gts, Hyderabad ][for ][a ][period]of 99 years vide [registered ][lease ][deed executed ][by]Government of Andhra [Pradesh ][on ][24.03.1967 ][enabling]establishment of manufacturing [plant for ][readymade]garments. Thereafter, the [petitioner's ][father ][in ][pursuance]to the said lease, has constructed [factory ][building ][and]for [readymade ][garments ][and ][the ][unit]installed machinery was continuously functional [and carrying ][on]manufacturing activity [for ][fifteen ][(i5) ][years ][and thereaJter']

-z due to labour unrest, it became a sick unit. Thereafter, theline of activity was changed from dress manufacturing unitto Pharmaceutical and in such context, a partnership deedwas entered oo 19Z6 under the name and style of M/s.Phoenix Pharmaceuticals and necessary permissions werea-[so taken.

6. Thereafter, due to some disputes amongst tfremembers of M/s. phoenix pharmaceuticals which resultedin filing of O.S.No.39g of 1995 but the manufacturingactivity continued upto I0.07.I99g a,d thereafter, thepartners have left the partnership firm. It is furthersubmitted that eversince grant of lease, there was alwaysan industrial activity over the said industrial plot and itwas never put to disuse by the father of the appellant /petitioner. Later, the petitioner father died in the year 1995and the appellant / petitioner was associated with themanufacturing process. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issuedmemo dated 29.O7.19g7 proposing termination of lease orrthe ground of sub-lease and non_user of industrial plot forwhich the petitioner / appellant filed detailed explanatiorrto the said memo and proceedings were dropped.

Thereafter, notice was issued by respondent [No.1 ][on]I2.O7.1989 suggesting termination [of ][lease ][on the ][very]same grounds and respondent [No.l ][issued ][G.O.Ms.No.225]dated 23.03.1990 terminating [lease ][hold ][rights ][in ][respect]of said industrial [plot. ][Thereafter, ][petitioner ][challenged ][the]said G.O., dated 23.03.1990 [by ][way ][of filing ][W.P.No.7025]of 1990 and this Court [granted ][an ][interim ][order ][of ][slatus]quo as regards possession on 25.05.1990 [in ][the ][said ][writ]petition.

7 . The petitioner has [submitted ][a ][detailed]representation dated 21 .O7.1993 [to ][respondent ][No. ][I ][for]restoration of lease [which ][was ][executed ][in ][favour ][of ][his]father, since the lease [was ][heritable. ][The ][petitioner ][was]made to understand that the [Government ][itself ][may]reconsider the issue and [restore ][the ][leasehold ][rights ][in ][his]favour and that on the [said ][representation, ][respondent]No. I issued memo dated [20.08.1993 forwarding ][the]representation to respondent [No.2 ][and ][directed ][him ][to]obtain a fresh lease application. [It is ][submitted ][that]petitioner received a letter [from ][respondent ][No ][2 ][to]withdraw W.P.No.7O25 of 1990, [so ][that ][Government ][cal]

take appropriate decisionThe petitioner in pursuance ofthat letter,has withdrawn said writ petition relying uponthe letterdated 16.11.1993 issued by respondent No.2wherein certain documents were required to be furnishedfor restoration of lease hold rights.

8. In G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 23.03.1990, it is submitted that the original lessee Mr.S.Bhagat Ram Guptaand his successors-in-interest of the said leasehold rightsof the deceased lessee failed to run the unit of original lineof manufacture "Ready-made dresses unit,, or revive it orstart a new unit so far in the leasehold premises, inspite ofseveral reminders and though ample opportunity was givento them all these years. It is further submitted that theentire land vr,as kept idle without any industrial activity,and his successors-in-interest of the said leasehold rightsof the deceased lessee failed to run the unit of original lineof manufacture "Ready-made dresses unit,, or revive it orstart a new unit so far in the leasehold premises, inspite ofseveral reminders and though ample opportunity was givento them all these years. It is further submitted that theentire land vr,as kept idle without any industrial activity,defeating the very purpose of individual use for which theland was leased out.land was leased out.

9. In view of the wilful breach of the covenants and violation of terms and conditions in respect of lease deeddated 24.03.2019 agreed upon in respect of the leaseholdpremises of plot No.21/ 1, admeasuring Ac. l _ 13T gts, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh thereby terminated [the]leasehold rights in the said plot of Industrial [Area,]Azamabad.

10. The learned Judge has noted [the ][letter ][dated]16. I 1. 1993 issued by Commissioner of [Industries, ][Andhra]Pradesh i.e., respondent No.2 to the [petitioner wherein that]certain particulars / documen ts were required [for ][taking]appropriate decision and requested to [give ][undertaking ][to]pay the arrears of the enhanced rate or [quit ][rent. ][It ][was]submitted by the petitioner before respondent [No'2 ][that]the industry would be commenced within [a period of ][one](1) year from the date of re-delivery of [possession ][of ][plot]and that the petitioner has complied [with all ][the]requirements contained in the letter [issued ][by ][respondent]No.2 dated 16.11.1993 and also [withdrawn ][the ][writ]petition and paid the quit rent and submits [that ][he ][had]legitimate expectation that industrial [plot ][will ][be ][restored]to the petitioner as regards leasehold [rights.]

11. It was further submitted that in [tLte ][year ][1992,]the State Legislature enacted Azamabad [Industrial ][Area]

(Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992 [for short'the Act' hereinafterl by which the subsisting leases in'the Act' hereinafterl by which the subsisting leases inAzamabad Industrial Estate were enmass terminated byoperation of law and the uires of the said Act werebyoperation of law and the uires of the said Act wereunsuccessfully chalenged before this court and thereforematter was taken before the Honble Supreme Courtwherein, respondent No.l represented before the Apexmatter was taken before the Honble Supreme Courtwherein, respondent No.l represented before the ApexCourt and stated that it is going to come up with certainamendments carrying considerable benefits to theamendments carrying considerable benefits to theerstwhiie lessees and on that promise the appeals in theHonble Supreme Court were closed.Honble Supreme Court were closed.

12. Thereafter, the Act underwent amendment in theyear 2000 by Amending Act No. ll2OOO and the amendedprovisions have enabled not only fresh grant of leaseholdprovisions have enabled not only fresh grant of leaseholdrights into freehold rights and arso conversion of freeholdrights as per option of erstwhile lessees and thereaJterrights as per option of erstwhile lessees and thereaJternecessarJi applications under the amendment provisions ofthe Act was to be made as prescribed in the Rules. At thetime of pending representation of the petitioner, the Actwas promulgated and the representation of the petitionerwas kept pending till the Amending Act 1/2000 has come into force. Thereafter, the petitioner has submittedrepresenlation dated 12.08.2OO2 duly referring to hisearlier representation and prayed for grant of leaseholdrights over the industrial plots. Thereafter, petitioner hassubmitted another representation on 17 .O3.2OO4 inpursuant to the fresh notification dated 17 .O2.20O4 forgrant of freehold rights. Respondent No.2 had rejected thepetitioners claim vide order dated 08.O7 .2OO4 on theground that there has been no industrial activity and thatthe lessee has failed to utilize the land either for startingany new unit or to revive the closed unit despite manyopportunities given by the Government since then and thelessee remained as a non-user of the assigned plot sinceI 967. There was no industrial activity and the lesseeremained as non-user as on the appointed date i.e.,17.O2.2OOO thereby attracting the provision of Section3(1)(b) of the Act No.1/2000

1 3. The petitioner submits that since he was calledupon to pay the quit rent as per the letter dated16.11.1993 on the principle of promissory estoppel andlegitimate expectation, the respondents ought to have restored the leasehold rights to him in which event, hewould have been a subsisting industrialist as on Ge datewhen the Act and the Amended Act had come into force.The petitioner would further submit that there wascontinuous industrial activity over the industrial plot from1963 when the lease was executed in favour of his father. Itis further submitted that respondent No.2 has taken a veryhyper technical ground and imaginary ground to reject hisclaim and insofar there is absolutely no basis for such afinding and hence the cancellation of lease order contendedin G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 23.O3.1990 is erroneous aldbasele ss.

14. The main grievance of the petitioner is thatrespondents have deceitfully made him to withdraw thewrit petition i.e., W.P.No.7205 of 1990 filed against the saidwrit petition i.e., W.P.No.7205 of 1990 filed against the saidcancellation and due to fraud played on him, he haswithdrawn the writ petition. It is further submitted that aspart of the same strates/, respondent No.2 had allottedpart of the same strates/, respondent No.2 had allottedindustrial plot to respondent No.3 who is not entitled forsuch an allotment since he is not an industrialist. Further,such an allotment since he is not an industrialist. Further,the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a political

organization and to accommodate them by allotment of [his]industrial plot is totaliy irrational and beyond any validreason and if respondent No.3 is etigible for allotment [of]his industrial plot, it is absolutely ununderstandable [as ][to]how he is disentitled to the same. That apart, [respondent]No.3 has not complied with any of the provisions [of ][the ][Act]and amendments provisions of the Act and [hence rejection]of the claim to respondent No.3 is [erroneous,]discriminatory and arbitrary

15. Petitioner / appellant thereafter liled an [appeal]before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of [the ][Act and ][his]appeal was rejected vide Memo dated [OB.1 ][1.2004,]challenging the same, petitioner [preferred ][a ][writ ][petition ][in]W.P.No.21410 of 2004 and the said writ [petition ][was ][partly]allowed on 17.02.2005 setting aside summary [rejection]order and directed respondent No.1 to [consider ][the]grounds of appeal on their own merit [afre ]sh [and ][in]pursuance to the said order, respondent No'1 [has ][passed]impugned memo dated 29.1O.2OO5. It is [submitted ][that]during the pendency of the writ [petition, ][respondent ][No.4]had executed the sale deed in favour of [respondent ][No.3]\before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of [the ][Act and ][his]appeal was rejected vide Memo dated [OB.1 ][1.2004,]challenging the same, petitioner [preferred ][a ][writ ][petition ][in]W.P.No.21410 of 2004 and the said writ [petition ][was ][partly]allowed on 17.02.2005 setting aside summary [rejection]order and directed respondent No.1 to [consider ][the]grounds of appeal on their own merit [afre ]sh [and ][in]pursuance to the said order, respondent No'1 [has ][passed]impugned memo dated 29.1O.2OO5. It is [submitted ][that]during the pendency of the writ [petition, ][respondent ][No.4]had executed the sale deed in favour of [respondent ][No.3]\

which is registered as Doc.No.3BO4 I2OOS alienating saidplot in favour of respondent No.3 for a total considerationof Rs. 17 ,19 ,5OO I - which according to the petitioner isnothing but an undue favour conferred out of way inplot in favour of respondent No.3 for a total considerationof Rs. 17 ,19 ,5OO I - which according to the petitioner isnothing but an undue favour conferred out of way infavour of respondent No.3, when all the other industrialplots in Azamabad Industrial Area were granted freshplots in Azamabad Industrial Area were granted freshlease/fresh hold in favour of the subsisting lessees an nosale deed is executed in respect of any other industrialplots in Azamabad Industrial Area.plots in Azamabad Industrial Area.

16. The petitioner is questioning the action ofrespondents in permanentll, de priving his claim for grant oflease / freeholder rights over the subject plot, which issubject matter in W.p.No.25167 of 20O5 and thus, fromany point of view, the action of selling industrial plot torespondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitionerfurther submits that in the contractual matters, the actionof State should be transparent and free from arbitrariness[2OO4(31SCC ss3].

17. Thereafter, lcarned Judge after noting thecontents of the counter filed by respondent Nos. l, 2 and 3

observed that while disposing the application of thepetitioner / appellant dated 17.03.2004, the Commissionerof Industries and competent authority opined as follows:"that the representation filed by Mr.B.Sathish KumarGupta of M/s.S.B.Ram and Company along withpetitioner / appellant dated 17.03.2004, the Commissionerof Industries and competent authority opined as follows:"that the representation filed by Mr.B.Sathish KumarGupta of M/s.S.B.Ram and Company along withApplication dated 17.03.2004 was examined and foundthat he had violated lease conditions ald the lease wasthat he had violated lease conditions ald the lease wascarrcelled by Government uide G.O.Ms.No.225 dated23.O3. 1990 and that the subsequent representation is onlya statement of intention of starting of an industrial activityand that the earlier assurances were made difficult tobelieve that the petitioner would start any industriala statement of intention of starting of an industrial activityand that the earlier assurances were made difficult tobelieve that the petitioner would start any industrialactivity and that M/s.S.B.Ram and Company was notdoing any industrial activity and thus they fall within theprovisions of Section 3(1)(b) and was ht for rejection.Accordingly, the application of M/s.S.B.Ram and Companyfor grant of leasehold rights was rejected uide offrce letterLr.No.13/ | /2Oo4 /Oo2s lOo25lFD, dated 08.07 .2004."doing any industrial activity and thus they fall within theprovisions of Section 3(1)(b) and was ht for rejection.Accordingly, the application of M/s.S.B.Ram and Companyfor grant of leasehold rights was rejected uide offrce letterLr.No.13/ | /2Oo4 /Oo2s lOo25lFD, dated 08.07 .2004."

18. It is further observed that rcjection of the grant offreehold rights were strictly in terms of Act No.1/20O0 andthat when the appeal filed by the petitioner / a-ppellant has been rejected, the Government has directed theCommissioner of Industries to handover the land torespondent No.4. Respondent No.2 after conductingpanchanama has handed over plot admeasuring 34 14sq.yds., in PIot No.21/1 to respondent No.4 on lg.ll.2OO4as per G.O.Ms.No.97t8/IF Cdil/A1 /2OOa, dated09.ll.2OO4, which was questioned by the petitioner byItling W.P.No.25l67 of 2005. The learned Single Judgewhile considering the applicability and the provisions of theAct carefully taken note of the Act and observed that asseen from the letter dated 16.11.1993, though inW.P.No.7O25 of 1990 u,hich has been r.r,ithdrawn, relatingto liberty or otherwise nothing has been specified and thelearned Judge has come to a conclusion that only in thelight of the compromise made, the writ petition had beenwithdrawn. The learned Judge has considered Section 4 ofthe Act cannot be invoked since the ingredients of Section4 are not satisfied.

19. Learned Judge has referred to State of Orissa v, Mangalam Titnber Prod.ucts Limited [t ]and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

"Hauing heard the learned counsel for theparties, we are satisfied that no case ls made outfor [interference ][tuith ][the ][judgment ][of ][the ][High]Court. Before the High Court, tlrc principal plea ofthe respondent u,tas that there u-)as no contract inuriting and therefore the applicabilitg of thepinciple of promissory estoppel was notestablished. The High Courl has rightly discardedthis plea. To attract the applicabilitg of thepinciple of estoppel it is not necessaru that theremust be a contract in writing entered intobetween the parties. We are ftot sotisfi.ed euenpima facie that it was a case of an errorcommitted bg the State Gouernment of which itutas not aware. The State of Orissa should haue,uhtle holding out the representation, taken intoconsideration the factwho utill haue to do re-plantation and tfnt the permission of theGouernment of India tuouLd be needed for thepurpose. The State cannot take aduantage of itsotun omission. The State Gouernment hauingpersuaded the respondent to establish anindustry and respondent hauing acted on the solemn promise of the state Gouernment,purchased the rauL material at a ftxed pice andalso sold its products bg pricing the same takinginto consideration the pice of raut mateial fixedby the State Gouernment and supplied, the Statepurchased the rauL material at a ftxed pice andalso sold its products bg pricing the same takinginto consideration the pice of raut mateial fixedby the State Gouernment and supplied, the StateGouernment cannot be permitted to reuise theterm.s for supplg of raw material aduerselg to theterm.s for supplg of raw material aduerselg to theinterest of the respondent and effectiue from aback date and place the respondent in a situationwhich it will not be able to resolue. Therespondent could not haue reuised their pice Jroma back date and recouered it from innumerablea back date and recouered it from innumerableconsumers to uthom their finished products uteresupplied at a frxed price."

20. In the case of Hira Tikkoo v. tlnion territory, Chand,igarh2, th,e I{on''ble Supreme Court observed atparagraph 25 as under:

"25. Surelg, the doctrine of estoppeL cannot be applied against public authorities uthen theirmistaken aduice or representation is found to bein breach of a Statute and therefore, againstgeneral public interest. The question, hou,teuer, isuthether tle parties or indiuiduals, uho hadsuffered because of the mistake and. negligenceon the part of tlrc statutory public authoitie s, ' [etn ][zooa ][sc ][3oa8]

would haue anA remedA of redressal for the losstheg haue suffered. The 'rules of fairness' bgwhich euery public authority ts bound, requiresthem to compensate loss occasioned to piuateparties or citizens tuho were misled in acting onsuch mistaken or negligent aduice of the publicAutlnritg. There are no allegations and materialin these cases to come to a conclusioru that theaction of the authorities was mala fide. It mag beLreld to be careless or negligent. In some of theDnglish cases, the uiew taken is that the publicauthoittes cannot be absolued of their liabilitg toprouide adequate monetary compensation to theparties u.tho are aduersely affected bg theirerrofteous decisions and actions. But in thesecases, anA directions to the public authoities topag monetary compensation or damages utouldalso indirectly harm general public interest. Thepublic authortties are enttusted with public fundtheg haue suffered. The 'rules of fairness' bgwhich euery public authority ts bound, requiresthem to compensate loss occasioned to piuateparties or citizens tuho were misled in acting onsuch mistaken or negligent aduice of the publicAutlnritg. There are no allegations and materialin these cases to come to a conclusioru that theaction of the authorities was mala fide. It mag beLreld to be careless or negligent. In some of theDnglish cases, the uiew taken is that the publicauthoittes cannot be absolued of their liabilitg toprouide adequate monetary compensation to theparties u.tho are aduersely affected bg theirerrofteous decisions and actions. But in thesecases, anA directions to the public authoities topag monetary compensation or damages utouldalso indirectly harm general public interest. Thepublic authortties are enttusted with public fundraised from public moneA. Tlrc funds are in trustuith them for utilisation in public interest andstictlg for the purposes of the Statute underwhich they are created wiLh specific statutoryduties imposed on them. In such a situation whena partg or citizen has relied, to his detiment, onan erroneous representation made bg publicauthorities and suffered loss and where doctrineof ['estoppel' ]utill not be inuoked to his aid,uith them for utilisation in public interest andstictlg for the purposes of the Statute underwhich they are created wiLh specific statutoryduties imposed on them. In such a situation whena partg or citizen has relied, to his detiment, onan erroneous representation made bg publicauthorities and suffered loss and where doctrineof ['estoppel' ]utill not be inuoked to his aid, directing administratiue red.ressal tuould be amore appropriate remedg than pagment ofmonetary compensation for the loss caused. bgnon- deliuery of the possession o/ the pLots andconsequent delag caused in setting up industiesbg the allottees."

21. Learned Judge had observed that this was a longdrawn litigation and that the petitioner had been agitatingfor his rights knocking the doors of the Courts repeatedly.It may also be relevant to have a glalce at the order madein W.P.No.456t of 2OO2 d.ated, 19.OZ.2OO2; "The bnef facts of the case are that the

father [of ][the ][petitioner ]u)qs grated- lease of theland in Azamabad Industial area for a period of99 gears in respect of Ac. 1 . 137 by tlrc IndustriesDepartment. Hou.teuer, the Gouernment of And-hraPradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.225, Industies and_Commerce (IF-Cell) Department dated. 23-3 l99Ocanceling ttle lease granted. on 24_3_ j gB7.Against the same, the petittoner filed WritPetition. No.7O25 of 1990, but in the meanuhilethe Gouernment enacted the act called. azamabaclindustrial aree. (termination & regulation ofleases) act bA utlttch all the leases in respect ofIndustrial area situated und.er Azamabad areasta.nd cancelled. Consequentlg, the petitioner uLas asked to uLithdrau the Wnt Petition so as toconsider his case for allotment of fresh leaseunder the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner hadwithdrawn the Wit Petition filed bg him and hemade a representation to the authorities for thegrant of fresh lease but so far no action has beentaken and therefore, the petitioner seeksappropiate directions. The petitioner also brtngsto the notice of this Court the co mmunication serutbg the General Manager, Distnct IndustriesCenter to tLrc Commissioner of Industies inLr.No.7761/ 1AA/ 82/ 2OO2 dated 15-3-2002,uherein te has recommended for grant of leaseof the land to the petitioner.

TfLe barned Gouernment Pleader fo,

Industies submits tltat only small extent of landuas allotted to Mandal Reuenue OfJicer wherethe construction fs being undertaken butLoweuer, for the purpose of allotment of freshLeases a notification has to be issued by [the]Commissioner of Industries and that exercise [is]get to be taken. He aLso submits that as andtuhen allotment takes place, tle case of thepetitioner also be taken into considerationkeeping in uietu tlrc earlier Lease granted to hisfather.

In uietu of the aboue, the Wnt Petttion is disposed of directing the petitioner to make fresh application for grant of Lease uithin a penod oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copg ofthis order and on such application theCommissioner while considering tLrc allotment ofIndustial plots on lease basis, sl:rall consider thetwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copg ofthis order and on such application theCommissioner while considering tLrc allotment ofIndustial plots on lease basis, sl:rall consider thecase of the petitioner and take appropriatedecision in tltis regard. No costs.,'

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUST ON:

22. Ti;,e grounds urged in the writ appeals are that learned Single Judge, having noted that W.p.No.7O25 of1993 was withdrawn pursuant to the letter dated16.11.1993 by respondent No.2 ought to have held thatsubsequent rejection of the case of the appellant by therespondent was illegal and unjustified.

23. In W.P.No.7O25 of 1993, the following order waspassed on 30. I 1.1993:

"The learned counsel for tle petitioners wants to withdraw the urit petition. Accordingly, the u_trit petitioru isdismissed as u,tith-d.ratun. No costs.,, 23.1. The writ petition was withdrawn without reserving any liberty to the petitioner as such thesubmission made by the appellant that subsequentsubmission made by the appellant that subsequent -"

rejection of the case of the appellant [by ][respondent ][as]illegal and unjustified is unsustainable. [Learned ][Single]Judge had observed that [W.P.No.7025 ][of ][1993 ][which ][had]been withdrawn, relating to iiberty [or ][otherwise ][nothing]had been specified in the order [dated ][30.11.1993 ][and]hence this Court may have to [arrive ][at ][the ][inevitable]conclusion that only in the light [of the ][compromise ][made,]writ petition had been withdrawn. [Hence, ][the ][learned]come to [a ][conclusion ][which]Single Judge has rightly warrants no interference.

24. Considering the facts and [circumstances ][and ][also]the stand taken by the [respective ][parties ][and the ][orders]passed in the earlier writ [petitions, ][learned ][Judge ][opined]that the Government is [not ][justified ][in ][totally ignoring ][the]stand taken by the writ petitioner [especially ][in ][the light ][of]the assurance, made at a [particular ][point ][ol ][time ][in]pursuance of which, the writ petition [had ][been ][withdrawn]ald also can be seen from [the ][subsequent events and ][the]series of writ petitions and the [orders ][made ][therein ][and in]the light of the provisions [of the Act and ][also ][the ][specific]stand tak\by respondent [No.3 ][and ][that ][it ][would not ][be]/_- proper to disturb the arlotments which had already beenmade earlier and kceping in view of the fact that thepossession had been taken long back and delivery also wasmade sufficiently a long time ago and much water hadflown thereafter. Though, the learned Judge was inclined toconfirm the allotments made earlier and subsequently,when it is brought to the notice of the learned Judge thatfurther sufficient exrent of land is leftover in the subjectmatter of the writ petition had directed the Government toconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the factsand circumstances and take appropriate decision inaccordance with law.

25. In the light of the above, learned Judge disposedof the writ petitions with a direction to the petitioner tomake a representation in detail within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said ordernarrating a_11 the facts and circumstances to the competentauthority / Government and that the Government shalltake decision in that regard within a period of six (6) weeksthereafter.

26. We have carefully taken notc of all the facts [and]circumstances in bo[h the writ petitions above and also thesubmissions made by learned counsel on [either ][side][,earned Single Judge has elaborately considered [the]submissions of both sides and has rightly [disposed ][of ][the]writ petitions with an opportunity being [given ]to [the]petitioner to make a representation for the [left ][over ][lands]in the subject matter of the writ [petition. ]It [was ][not]brought before this Court either at the time [of submissions]or in the grounds of the writ appeal, [whether ][ar-ry]representation is being filed by the [petitioner ]/ [appellant]subsequent to the passing of the [impugned ][order.]

27 . Therefore, we do not hnd arry [reason ][to ][interfere]with the common order dated l3.ll.2oo7 [in]W.P.Nos.25167 of 2OO5 and 7619 of [2O06 passed ][by ][the]learned Single Judge and the relief as [such sought ][for ][in]the present writ appeals cannot [be ][entertained]

28. For the reasons stated above, [writ ][appeals ln]W.A.Nos.46 1 and 462 of 2008 lails and [are ][accordingly]dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, it any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. M. MANJUDEPUTYIStl//rRUE coPY//Ii SECTION OFFICERTo,1One CC to SRI[rio*, [*o**, ][Advocate ][oPUC]2. Two CCs to[6r [tndustries ][& ][Commerce,]High Court for the State ofTelangana at "bHyd'brabad. [OUT]3. one CC to sRl h.b., oruuru KUMAR, [Advocate ]toPUCI4. One CC to SRIk.hr. t'rrooRt, Advocate toPUCl5One CC to Ms.ktr,iro*o EKBoTE, S.c. for Municipal [Corporation ]toPUcI6Two CD Copie$MPY\'GJP

.

ifrrHifl,ilfi'$1i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

h([c]\1{i!.),JC1-20l,lc?t,.f.,/

COMMON JUDGMENT

;tiW.A.NO.461 AND 462 0F 2008AND 462 0F 2008462 0F 20080F 20082008iti'fi'&l!IHtilxrii.rfrEirDISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALSWITHOUT COSTS

W.A.NO.461 AND 462 0F 2008AND 462 0F 2008462 0F 20080F 20082008

iIiIitsx,,Iiint:rBIIt,t

q.@

II

i