Whitefield Paper Mills Ltd., v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 2170 of 2016 ORDER:
The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the State as embodied in G.O.Ms.No.17, Industries & Commerce (Policy & Investment) Department, dated 13.01.2016, whereby the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by and between the first petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was cancelled and the District Collector, West Godavari District, was requested to take necessary immediate action for resumption of the land.
2. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that this action was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the first petitioner was not even put on notice about the proposed cancellation despite an extension having been granted earlier by the State under G.O.Ms.No.201, Industries and Commerce (IP & INT) Department dated 04.12.2014.
3. This contention warrants consideration as perusal of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 04.12.2014 reflects that a show cause notice had been issued by the State under its Memo dated 19.12.2013 but upon considering the communications of the first petitioner dated 30.10.2013 and 27.10.2014, the State extended the time for achieving financial closure in the first instance up to 31.03.2015 and if such closure was achieved, further time of 18 months was to be granted for fully executing the project. According to Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, the first petitioner has achieved financial closure as defined by the Reserve Bank of India. However, the understanding of the State in this regard seems to be at variance as is clear from paragraph 12 of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 13.01.2016. In any event, if the State was of the opinion that the first petitioner had failed to act in accordance with the extension orders, it necessarily had to put it on notice before resorting to cancellation of the MOU. Significantly, the State had earlier issued a show cause notice in 2013
pursuant to which the extension had been granted. That being so, the impugned G.O. is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice as there is no mention therein that the first petitioner was even put on notice prior to the cancellation effected thereunder. However, as the State has already resorted to this drastic step, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sufficiently served by treating the contents of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 13.01.2016 as a show cause notice in the first instance and allowing the petitioners to respond thereto by submitting their explanation in the context of what was required of them under the extension orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 04.12.2014. Pending consideration of the explanation, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 13.01.
2016 shall be kept in abeyance and shall not be given effect to. After considering the petitioners' explanation and giving them due opportunity of hearing to explain their stand, it shall be open to the State authorities to either cancel, modify, or affirm the impugned GO by way of a separate proceeding which shall be duly communicated to the petitioners. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR January 27, 2016 Lmv