TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Declare the Rule 10.1 of the Rules of 2015 ultravires being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.; (iii) Cancel the allotments already made contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of granting largessee in the form of industrial plots to the investors; (iv) Cancel the allotments made, if any, in favour of Patanjali Company (respondent No.5) and Baba Ramdev (respondent No.6) (v) Direct the respondents to look to the interests of farmers and not acquire any agricultural land of any farmer in the name of industrial development. (vi) Any other suitable relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit." 3. This is second round of litigation. Earlier W.P.No.6994 of 2016 (PIL) and W.P.No.7033/2016 (PIL) has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on 17.10.2016. Order dated 17.10.2016 reads as under :- "They are heard at length on the question of admission. 2. Petitioner - Dr. Tapan Bhattacharya is a Social Activist and has no personal interest of his own in filing these writ petitions. 3. In W.P. No.6994/2016(PIL), the petitioner is challenging th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) direct the respondents to look to the interests of farmers and not acquire any agricultural land of any farmer in the name of industrial development. (v) Any other suitable relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit. 6. According to the petitioner, the Industries Department of State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh in 2012 framed Small Scale and Micro Industries Rules, 2012 under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Under the Rules of 2012, the maximum limit of land to be allotted was 10 Acres. In 2016, the same has been changed and now 40 acres land could be allotted to an industry. It is also submitted that Rules has been changed just to give benefit to Patanjali Company. 7. It is also averred that on 22nd and 23rd October, 2016, State Government of Madhya Pradesh is holding the Global Investors Summit at Indore. The State Government much prior to the Global Investors Summit allotted land to Patanjali Company, MicroMax, Ajanta Pharma, Motherson, Wander Cement, Dhut Transmission, German Company, Hitachi, ZF Gears and SRF. It is also stated that the M.P. Government has allotted 71,000 Acres of land to the industrialists on the hope that the industries will be set up and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land to the defaulters of the banks is a threat to the life and property of the residents of Madhya pradesh resulting in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Investors Summit is a further serious danger to the environment of Indore district which is impermissible and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that in Indore 75% crop is destroyed and no insurance or help is made available to the farmers. Due to heavy industries the farmers are migrating and also committing suicides. The State Government inspite of clear direction made by the Apex Court in the case of Swaraj Abhiyan (supra), the persons who are living in drought affected area, the State Government is not providing food grains as required under the NFS Act and also to those persons whose land has been acquired are affected by delayed payment of compensation. The petitioner also prayed that the Summit which are going to be held on 22nd and 23rd October, 2016 should be cancelled or the entire plan should be modified in the following manners:- (i) All the allotments made till now be cancelled; (ii) Tender should be called f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rowth, the State Government started organizing industrial trade fairs on a regular basis at national and international level through Madhya Pradesh Trade Fair Authority. In order to further enhanced the rate, developed industrial land shall be made available at competitive price to the investors, the State Government created investment corridors. They are allotting the land strictly as per the policy framed by the State Government. The Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014 and action plan has been published in M.P. Gazette on 1.10.2014. The industrial policy is neither arbitrary or based on irrelevant consideration or mala fide or against any statutory provisions and does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of power of judicial review. It satisfies the parameter fixed by the Apex Court from time to time. He further submitted that the primary and center purpose of judicial review of the administrative action is to promote good administration. It is to ensure that administrative bodies act efficiently and honestly to promote the public good. They should operate in a fair, transparent, and unbiased fashion, keeping in forefront the public interest. 13. The Apex Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following manner :- "100. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as :- (i) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (ii) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention. (iii) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (iv) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions. (v) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or legislations. (vi) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation." 15. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to para 35, 49, 50 of the decision(s) of the Apex Court in the case of City Industrial Development V/s. Platinum Entertainment (supra), para 19, 29, 32 and 34 of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Sangh V/s. State of M.P. & Ors. (supra), law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dhiren Arvind Mehta V/s. Registrar Administration, High Court of Guj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts. 18. Normally, a PIL cannot be entertained solely on the basis of information published in the newspapers. However, if a person is unable to have access in the court for any reason and the right of the life and liberty is involved PIL can be entertained. As per the averments made in both the writ petitions, there is no material that the so call allotment of the land to the industrialist, had been made in violation of any enactment, statutory rule and regulation. Nor there is anything on record to say that the so called grant of land has been made deviation from the policy framed by the State Government. The Government policy can be only be challenged when it offends some constitution or statutory provision This court cannot strike down a Government policy decision merely because another policy decision could be fairer, wiser or more scientific or logical unless the policy decision is malafide or in-conferred with law interference with the same would be warranted. 19. Keeping in mind the aforesaid parameter of ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commercial Tax Department, Principal Secretary Commerce, Industry & Employment Department and three Principal Secretary of Government of M.P. 6. As per Rule 10.2 Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, where the value of the project is over Rs. 25.00 Crores, then the project is considered as mega project. Applications for mega projects are considered by CCIP under Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014 and according to the project, incentives / concession are granted under Clause 4.2.1 of the Industrial Policy 2014, which states thus :- "4.2 Cabinet Committee on Investment Promotion (CCIP) 4.2.1 CCIP has been constituted with Chief Minster as Chairman and Ministers of Finance, Commercial Taxes and Industries Department as members. The CCIP has authority to deal with all issues relating to Industrial promotion. The CCIP is fully empowered to sanction a customized package of assistance beyond what has been explicitly provided in this policy. Such packages shall be available only to Mega Scale Industrial Units." 7. The respondent No.5 is Mega Scale Industrial Unit and showed an investment of Rs. 500 Crores with the proposal to provide employment opportunities to the farmers and others in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Crores (Rs.Five Hundred Crores) with members to the farmers and other general public, a decision was taken for allotment of the plot in question to respondent No.5 and in furtherance a lease deed was executed in its favour. 12. The lease deed is for a term of 99 years commencing from 16.11.2016 and ending on 15.11.2035 for the purpose of industrial activity (Fruits & Vegetable Juices / business). As per Clause 4, the lessee has to pay a premium of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Crores) and annual lease rent at the rate of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lac) per annum. A part from the above, he has to pay annual maintenance charges of Rs. 12,95,040/- (Rs.Twelve Lac Ninety Five Thousand and Forty) and such other sum as may be determined in accordance with the said Rules. 13. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 25 (d), Rule 10(1) of M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, claiming them to be 'Ultra Vires' and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As per Rule 10.2 of the Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014, where the value of the project is over Rs. 25.00 Crore then, the project is considered as Mega Project. 14. Sub-Rule 10.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advertisement in the newspaper or by any other recognized mode of publicity inviting applications from organizations/institutions like the Memorial Trust or Respondent No.5 for allotment of land and everything was done by the political and non-political functionaries of the State as if they were under a legal obligation to allot land to the Memorial Trust and/or respondent No.5. The advertisements issued by the State functionaries were only for inviting objections against the proposed reservation and/or allotment of land in favour of the Memorial Trust and not for participation in the process of allotment. Considering these facts the Apex Court has held that the allotment thereof was fraught with grave illegality and was nothing but a blatant act of favoritism on the part of functionaries of the State. In the present case, the respondent No.5, applied for grant of industrial land under the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, Industrial Promotion Policy, 2014 and Action Plan. The petitioner has assailed the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.5 claiming it to be in-contravention with Rule 25(d) of the M.P. State Industrial Land and Building Mana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....305 of 2016), wherein, a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Ravindra Singh V/s. Union of India (SLP No.3974 of 2017), wherein, a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been imposed by the Apex Court for filing frivolous litigation and wasting precious judicial time. 23. 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. The Apex Court in para 79 and 87 in the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) V/s. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 has observed thus :- "79. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-e....