Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Gaonkar Chemicals and its proprietor Jaisatchitanand Gaonkar, filed a writ petition challenging Resolution No.26/21 dated 24 September 2021 and its confirmation on 13 December 2021 by the Goa Industrial Development Corporation (respondent) to re-advertise plot No. B-12 at Kundaim Industrial Estate. The petitioner had applied for this plot pursuant to an advertisement dated 31 January 2019 under the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Regulations, 2014. The Screening Committee, in its meeting on 10 January 2020, recommended allotment of plot B-12 to M/s Maruti Plastic Industries, even though that entity had applied only for plot 17-G and had not paid the security deposit for plot B-12. The petitioner alleged that this allotment was illegal and that he was wrongly denied the plot. Subsequently, the respondent resolved to re-advertise the plot, which the petitioner challenged as arbitrary. The court examined the Screening Committee minutes and found that M/s Maruti Plastic Industries had mentioned both plot numbers in its application but had only paid security for plot 17-G. The court held that the allotment to M/s Maruti Plastic Industries was illegal and that the respondent's decision to re-advertise, rather than consider the petitioner's application, was arbitrary. The court quashed the impugned resolutions and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the Regulations, without being influenced by the earlier illegal allotment. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Allotment of Industrial Plots - Legitimate Expectation - The petitioner applied for plot B-12 as per advertisement dated 31 January 2019 under the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Regulations, 2014. The Screening Committee recommended allotment to another party despite irregularities, and later the Corporation resolved to re-advertise the plot. The Court held that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation and the resolution to re-advertise was arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Development - Allotment of Plots - Screening Committee Irregularities - The Screening Committee minutes dated 10 January 2020 showed that M/s Maruti Plastic Industries, which applied only for plot 17-G, was also considered for plot B-12 without paying the required security deposit. The Court held that such allotment was illegal and the Corporation's subsequent resolution to re-advertise was not justified. (Paras 6-9) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned resolutions and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the Regulations, as the earlier process was vitiated by irregularities. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Resolution No.26/21 dated 24 September 2021 and its confirmation on 13 December 2021 to re-advertise plot No. B-12 is arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of the said plot.
Final Decision
The court quashed Resolution No.26/21 dated 24 September 2021 and its confirmation dated 13 December 2021, and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for plot B-12 afresh in accordance with the Regulations, without being influenced by the earlier illegal allotment. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Allotment of industrial plots
- Screening Committee recommendations
- Legitimate expectation
- Arbitrariness in administrative action
- Compliance with regulations
