U/S 18 MIDC Act, Govt. Can Only Issue Directions Regarding Policy Matters And Not Relating To Specific Projects/ Allotments Of Land: Bombay HC
|The Bombay High Court has observed that under Section-18 of the MIDC Act the State Government can issue directions for policy matters and not directions relating to specific projects and specific allotments of land.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to execute the requisite agreement to lease in respect of the parcels of land allotted to the Petitioners, and to hand over possession of the land for their development towards the purposes for which they were allotted to the Petitioners.
The division-bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, "Even a plain reading of Section 18 of the MIDC Act would point to the fact that the State Government may indeed issue general or special directions to the MIDC on such matters of policy as it may think necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the MIDC Act. The directions enabled by such provisions are meant to be directions as regards policy matters and not directions relating to specific projects and specific allotments of land."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Tushar Sonawane while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Prashant Chawan.
The MIDC had allotted land to the Petitioner for developing a hotel and despite the allotment having been made and full payment having been received, the MIDC has simply refrained from executing the requisite agreements and actually granting possession of the land to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has assailed the same as an arbitrary failure on the part of MIDC to perform a statutory obligation. It was submitted that all the occupancy premium payable in respect of the allotted land has indeed been paid and it is after November 2021 that MIDC started stalling further steps in the matter and did not proceed to take steps in furtherance of the allotment, thereby stalling the Petitioner’s project.
Senior Counsel for the Respondent had one core contention that the MIDC was issued a written binding “direction” from the State Government to keep further processing of these two leases on hold, and MIDC is helpless since the direction of the State Government is binding on the MIDC. The alleged "direction" states that going forward, there should be no alienation of any land along the service road. Even those to whom land has already been allotted and projects have developed, must be relocated elsewhere. The purported reason for issuance of such instructions is said to be potential vehicular accidents in the area.
The Court set itself to examine whether such instructions issued by the State Government can fall within the ambit of "direction" under MIDC Act.
"...in many legislation, it is usual to also find a provision that stipulates that the view of the Government as to what constitutes a policy direction shall be final and binding on the statutory body to which it is issued. Section 18 does not have such a stipulation, which makes it imperative for MIDC to truly and reasonably examine if a purported direction has been issued invoking Section 18, or whether, even while being silent on the provision invoked, the body of the instrument inexorably constitutes a policy direction," the Court observed.
The Court also took note of the letter tendered by AGP from the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, confirming in writing that no policy direction has been issued by the State Government to the MIDC under Section 18 of the MIDC Act.
"The State Government’s letter dated December 16, 2024 confirming this position has been taken on record by us. Once it is clear that there has been no processing for issuance of any direction under Section 18 of the MIDC Act (the only means of legitimate instruction from the Government of Maharashtra to MIDC and that too on a policy matter), it is clear that the January 4 Instruction is not at all a policy direction under Section 18 of the MIDC Act, and that cannot be the basis of MIDC refusing to discharge its statutory duty owed pursuant to its functioning," the Court observed.
The Court therefore issued relevant directions to the MIDC.
"Evidently, validly processed projects have simply been stalled and interfered with, without any basis in law – firmly placing the inaction by MIDC and the core reason or justification behind the stalling, in the realm of manifest arbitrariness, necessitating our intervention in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts collectively paint a vivid picture of interference with the functioning of the MIDC, in the name of issuance of policy directions, which we are clearly informed, have never been issued. Besides, the written contents of the January 4 Instruction, ex facie do not carry the character of a policy direction, and they are evidently directions on the manner of handling projects," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: M/s. Bikaner Sweets & Namkin NX-2 vs. Area Manager (2024:BHC-AS:50618-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Tushar Sonawane, Advocate Siddhi Sawant
Respondent- Advocate Prashant Chawan, Additional Government Pleader A.I. Patel, Advocate S.R. Nargolkar
Click here to read/ download Order: