Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd. And ANR. v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/3052/2020 Pearlescent Meritech Private Limited and another ... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India and others ... Respondents Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioners Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. M. Laxmanan ... for the respondents December 19, 2022 [SR] Item No.1 The writ petition is directed against, Order No.805 dated 25th June, 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District as confirmed in an appeal, by the Secretary (Revenue) in his Order dated 31st January, 2022, cancelling a license to the petitioner. By reason of the licence, two hectares of land were allotted to the petitioner for pearl cultivation.

The petitioner is a company limited by shares. By a licence of the year 2002, the petitioner was granted the said land for the purpose of pearl cultivation against payment of a premium. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, after compliance of principles of natural justice, the Deputy Commissioner South Andaman found that the petitioner was not using the land for pearl cultivation.

There was an inspection conducted. The inspection report records nine several reasons for arriving at that there was no serious pearl cultivation done by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner of having produced ten thousand pearls was rejected based both on electricity consumption as well as the balance sheets of the company for the year ended 31st March, 2017. All income of the petitioner was from other sources (agricultural). Admittedly, there was a coconut and cashew plantation on the land already existing at the time when license was granted in the year 2002.

It was also found that under a permission granted by the respondents itself, another proprietorship company called Marine Aquaculture Industries was functioning thereat and was carrying on agricultural activity.

Based inter alia on the above, the Deputy Commissioner found that the petitioner was not using the land in question for cultivation of pearls. The Deputy Commissioner therefore cancelled the license and ordered resumption of the land.

On an appeal preferred by the appellant, the Secretary (Revenue), confirmed the order of Deputy Commissioner, vide an order dated 31st January, 2022. In a detailed 16 page decision, the evidence on record before the Deputy Commissioner and further evidence was also taken into consideration. Due notice of such evidence was given to the petitioner. In addition to the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, a large number of contradictions were found

in the stand of the petitioner. It was inter alia also found that the experts from the ZSI, had clearly indicated that availability of the Oysters in question for producing and black and white pearls was not sufficient to sustain any commercial production.

Ms. Anjili Nag, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the licence was never meant for the purpose of commercial production. It must be implied that the license was for research and development.

It is further argued that pearl culture goes on primarily during the months of July and August, and little electricity is required. It is further submitted that the terms of licence did not mandate any commercial production or profits to be earned by the petitioner. Absence of profits therefore could not have been a ground for cancellation of the licence and resumption of the land.

Ms. Nag argued that the unit was inspected by none other than the Lieutenant Governor on as many as three occasions. Newspaper reports are relied upon to indicate that the Governor was shown actual cultivation of these pearls. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. Newspaper reports of inspection by any dignitary or any other personality are of no consequence for determining whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it is being licensed.

It does not appear from the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the appellate authority that the petitioner ever argued that the pearl cultivation was for research and not for commercial purpose.

A licence is granted to a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act is and has to be understood only for commercial use with a profit motive. The evidence of the experts including the ZSI clearly indicates that there aren't enough Oysters available in the area for permitting any commercial exploitation or production of black and white pearls.

The statement of objects and purpose articles and memorandum of the petitioner were not produced, to indicate any research or educational activities. None whatsoever have been relied upon or placed before the authorities or this Court.

In those circumstances, the petitioner cannot improve upon what was already therein before the quasi-judicial authorities below.

This Court does not find any perversity or finding contrary to record in the orders impugned There is admittedly no violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are therefore sustainable in law and cannot be upset under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The orders are sustained.

WPA/3052/2020 therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )