Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the challenge to an order by the Revenue Secretary (Appeals) that cancelled a license and permission granted to a partnership firm for establishing a khandsari manufacturing unit. The firm, formed in 1980, purchased land and received necessary permissions to commence construction and operations, investing approximately Rs. 18,00,000 and employing around 250-300 workers. In 1983, the Revenue Secretary issued a notice questioning the legality of the permissions based on a policy against granting licenses in areas with existing cooperative units. The petitioners contended that the review was not conducted within a reasonable timeframe, as it occurred four years after the original order. The government argued that no specific time limit existed for such reviews under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, thus justifying the delay. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the review period and referenced a precedent that suggested a maximum review period of one year. It concluded that the government's inaction for four years constituted a failure to act within a reasonable time, thereby quashing the Revenue Secretary's order. The court also recognized the principle of promissory estoppel, noting that the petitioners had relied on the government's prior actions and investments, which should not be disregarded. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, restoring the earlier permissions and licenses granted by the District Development Officer, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Review Powers - Reasonable Time for Review - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1948, Section 211 - The court held that the Revenue Secretary's review of the District Development Officer's order was not conducted within a reasonable time, as it occurred four years after the original decision, thus rendering the review invalid. The court emphasized that actions should be taken promptly to avoid jeopardizing established rights (Paras 2-11). B) Administrative Law - Promissory Estoppel - Binding Nature of Government Representations - Not mentioned - The court recognized that the principle of promissory estoppel applied, as the petitioners had relied on the government's prior approvals and investments, making it inequitable for the government to revoke the permissions after substantial reliance (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revenue Secretary's order to cancel the license and permission was valid considering the time taken for review.
Final Decision
The court quashed the order passed by the Revenue Secretary on 23.7.1985 and restored the orders passed by the District Development Officer on 24.11.1980 and 30.4.1981. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review powers
- reasonable time
- promissory estoppel
- administrative law
- Bombay Land Revenue Code
- 1948
