YADAV, J. - (1.) THE petitioner company has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 24. 9. 91 which was communicated to the petitioner company on 5. 10. 91 Anx. 2 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 District Level Screening Committee, Bhilwara refusing grant of eligibility certificate under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1987 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 2-B of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short 'the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987' ).
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner company of the Modern Worsted Spinners was constructed on the land situated in khasra No. s. 3411, 3412 and 3413. THE State Govt. also accorded the sanction for change of this land from Ware Housing Godown to Industrial purposes and orders have been passed for the change in the proposed draft master plan. THE relevant documents in support of the aforesaid averments are filed as Anx. 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is also alleged that the Collector Bhilwara issued the orders and converted the agricultural land for industrial purposes and the same was allotted to the petitioner company under the Rajasthan Industrial Area Allotment (Amended) Rules, 1987 (in short 'the Rules of 1987' ). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above it is alleged by the petitioner company that its case is fully covered under the proviso of sub-clause (dd) of clause 2 of Definition given under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987. Since it is alleged that the petitioner company falls within the proviso of sub-clause (dd) of clause 2 of Definition clause given under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987, therefore, it moved an application for eligibility certificate under the said scheme on 1. 11. 88 indicating in its application that it started production w. e. f. 1. 10. 88. The application moved by the petitioner company is filed to the writ petition and marked as Anx. 10 to the writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that in the said application moved by the petitioner company the date of commencement of commercial production is indicated at serial No. 8 to be 1. 10. 88. It is further alleged that the aforesaid application moved by the petitioner company for grant of eligibility certificate under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme 1987 was rejected by the respondent No. 2 earlier on 24. 3. 89 against which the petitioner company has filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4336/90 which was decided on 11. 7. 1991 and the aforesaid order passed by the respondent No. 2 was set aside and the case was remanded back for decision in the light of the State Government order dated 23. 3. 88 which was marked as Anx. 6 in the earlier writ petition and in the present writ petition it is marked as Anx. 3. There was a direction by this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition that the respondent No. 2 will decide the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner cempany. After remand of the case the respondent No. 2 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company passed the impugned order Anx. 2 to the writ petition and again refused to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner company against which the present petition is filed. After service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a joint reply denying the averments made in the writ petition and it is stated that the petitioner company is not entitled to get the benefit under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme 1987. It is stated in the reply that the grounds for refusing to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner company by the respondent No. 2 are eminently just and proper and allegations contrary to it are devoid of truth and merit.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner company Shri Rajendra Mehta and learned Additional Government Advocate Shri C. R. Jakhar at length and have critically gone through the material available on record. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner company's application dated 1. 11. 88 has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 on three grounds, firstly, that the principles which were applied in the case of M/s Chitlangia Cotton and Ginning and Processing Factory, National High Way No. 15, Ganganagar Vs. State of Rajasthan and others decided on 06. 12. 88 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, secondly that on page No. 3 of the writ petition No. 4336/90, the unit was described as expansion while application was filed as a new unit and thirdly that the Modern Worsted Spinners has been established on the site of the existing unit manufacturing similar goods. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner company the grounds of rejection given in the impugned order by the respondent No. 2 are erroneous and are not sustainable in eyes of law. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner company s not acceptable to me for the reasons that the respondent No. 2 has not rejected the application dated 1. 11. 88 moved by the petitioner company only on the aforesaid grounds but one of the grounds given by the respondent No. 2 is that the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Authority, Jaipur has conveyed approval for modification in the draft Master Plan of Bhilwara from Ware Housing to industrial area in respect of the land measuring 300 ft. x 450 ft. falling in khasra Nos. 3411, 3412 and 3413 situated in south of the existing woolen mill to the Chief Town Planner, Jaipur vide his letter dated 23. 3. 88 Anx. 3 to the writ petition which was marked as Anx. 6 in the earlier writ petition and in pursuance of that letter, the Collector, Bhilwara has declared the said land for the industrial purposes instead of Ware Housing shown in the proposed Master Plan and inform accordingly to the Dy. Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department, Jaipur vide his letter dated 15. 7. 89 Anx. 6 to the present writ petition and actual lease-deed was registered in favour of the petitioner company on 5. 1. 1990. ;