I.P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) THE decision of the Development Commissioner dated 31st December, 2007 refusing to de -notify the area occupied by the writ petitioner, which is in the Special Economic Zone, [SEZ] is challenged in this writ.
(2.) ALTHOUGH the respondents seem to have affirmed an affidavit in opposition on 7th January, 2009 the original is not traceable in the records of the court. A copy thereof which had been served upon by the advocate on record for the respondents on the petitioner was handed up to this court. I have considered the said copy affidavit in opposition. The case of the petitioner in short is that it started well as a 100% Export Oriented Unit in Falta Export Processing Zone [EPZ]. According to the respondents, this unit could only operate till 2002 -2003. At or about this time the said area became part of a Special Economic Zone [SEZ]. By his letter dated 20th March, 2003 which is at page 58 of the writ petition the respondent No. 1 approved conversion of the petitioners' unit in Falta SEZ to 100% EOU outside the zone.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the affairs of the writ petitioner have been referred to the BIFR. Proceedings in the Board are pending. For those reasons, the petitioner is unable to carry on any business and is becoming liable to penalties for its failure to achieve the export target.;