ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate, Shri D.L.N. Rao, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered partnership firm and it is the absolute owner of immovable properties bearing No. 96 and 104, P -2, EPIP Industrial Area, Whitefield, Bangalore. It consists of land and building forming an Information Technology Park developed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, namely, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, represented by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the 2nd respondent herein, had introduced a Scheme known as the "Industrial Park Scheme, 2002". In terms of the Scheme, entrepreneurs were entitled to establish an industrial park and as a direct benefit thereto were entitled to tax benefits as provided for under the Scheme. The petitioner had submitted an application for establishment of an industrial park under the Scheme and chose the "Automatic Route", as provided for under paragraph 5 of the Scheme. Respondent No. 1, through respondent No. 2, had accorded sanction as per approval dated 08.08.2003. The petitioner, however, was unable to fulfill the requirements for approval, under the "Automatic Route". Therefore, the petitioner had sought to surrender the permission granted under the Automatic Route while simultaneously making a fresh application under the provisions of the Industrial Park Scheme choosing the "Non -Automatic Route", by a letter dated 14.04.2005. The application was accompanied by an affidavit and the petitioner had also submitted the necessary documents. The application form was a standard form pre -printed form, which was common to both the "Automatic Route" and the "Non -Automatic Route", for Industrial Model Town, Industrial Parks and Growth Centres. The application was approved. The petitioner having satisfied the conditions required under the Non -Automatic Route, the park was established and was operating since the year 2006. It is by a show cause notice dated 27.04.2012, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the approval ought not to be cancelled as the petitioner had violated the conditions imposed. Though the petitioner had filed a reply to demonstrate that there was no such violation of any condition prescribed under the Scheme, the respondents chose to overrule the said reply and cancelled the approval by an order received by the petitioner on 14.03.2013. It is thereafter the present petition is filed.

(3.) IN order to examine whether there was indeed a violation of the conditions, it is necessary to note the provisions of the Scheme, which is available at Annexure 'A' to the petition. Under paragraph 5, the Automatic Approval Route is defined and the manner in which an application shall be made, as also the criteria for automatic approval is provided for under paragraph 6. And under paragraph 6(f), it is specifically laid down as follows: - -