KWALITY PULP AND PAPER MILLS VAPI Vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VAPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a lessee of plot No. 183 admeasuring 8230 sq m. of land situated in Vapi Industrial Estate of the respondent-Corporation. The lease is for a period of 99 years commencing from 26/08/1976 A regular lease deed has been executed between the parties and it is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. In substance the petitioner prays that it be permitted to commit breach of contract or at any rate certain terms and conditions of the lease deed be treated as illegal and void and the respondent-Corporation be directed not to enforce the same. Thus. in short the question is can a decree for setting aside the terms and conditions of lease deed be passed in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India ? Obviously such a prayer cannot be granted and hence the petition can never be entertained. Therefore on this short ground alone the petition is liable to be rejected. However certain points which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners be examined.

(2.) Under the terms and conditions of the lease deed the petitioner is required to pay water-charges; and if water-charges are paid late late payment charges are also required to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner contents that the respondent-Corporation is not entitled to levy penalty either on account of improper working of the water-meter or on account of late payment of water-charges The petitioner contends that there is no provision in the lease agreement for imposition of such penalty. In response to the notice issued by this Court affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. In para 4.1. of the affidavit-in-reply it is clearly stated that the petitioner is a lessee and the petitioner is also governed by the water-supply regulations framed by the respondent-Corporation. These regulations provide for penalty for improper working of the water-meter and for late payment of watercharges. The regulations are applicable to all the lessees including the petitioner. In view of this factual position the contention that the respondent-Corporation is exacting money without there being any authority of law has no basis. Action of the respondent-Corporation in levying penalty on account of improper working of the water-meter and/or on account of late payment of water charges is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed executed by and between the parties. As per the lease deed the water-supply regulations framed by the respondent-Corporation are applicable to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioners contention that the respondent-Corporation is not entitled to recover the aforesaid penalty charges cannot be accepted.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing paper including craft paper. For the purpose of manufacturing the aforesaid commodities water is required in abundant quantity Since the petitioner required water in abundance the petitioner sought to excavate a bore for the purposes of fetching water. It is contended that the respondent-Corporation cannot restrain the petitioner from digging bore and fetching water. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the terms and conditions in the lease deed would not come in the way of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be restrained from digging the land for the purpose of fetching water. The relevant clause of the lease deed reads as follows: