TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plied 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 furnish the requisite legal undertaking as prescribed in the SEZ scheme to the Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone (NSEZ). Before signing the LUT it should have its own operational Web-site and permanent E-mail address. The unit would have the option to renew its SEZ status or opt out of the scheme as per industrial policy in force at that time in relation to items of production. (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exure 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 the writ petition). Again the petitioner sought further extension of validity period of LOA/LOP vide application dated 25-7-2005 which was allowed by the competent authority vide letter dated 29-7-2005 (Annexure 14) for a further period of six months, i.e., till 31-12-2005. Still nothi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 affidavits have been filed. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the petitioner was given due notice as is evident from Annexure 16 to the writ petition and, therefore, the contention that the impugned order were passed without affording any opportunit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erstanding 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 inspection and findings and give him an opportunity before passing the order cancelling LOA/LOP. 9. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is now considered to be a part of principles of natural justice. If in the light of existing state of affairs, a part....