High Court · 2012

As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was allotted with the industrial Shed No. 42, 45, 46, 47 and 48 in the industrial estate, Bamunimaidum, Guwahati by executing a lease deed on 4.3.1992. It is the own case of the petitioner that Shed No. 42 is under use of the respondent No. 5. In paragraph 4 of the writ pe tition, it has been stated that the respondent No. 5 was allowed to run its indu stry in Shed No. 42 as a sister concern. Referring to Annexure-B communication d ated 27.6.2000, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shed No . 42 although was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 5 allegedly in 2004 b ut the same was not known to the petitioner. By another communication dated 20.2 .2004 (Annexure-D) made to the Managing Director, Assam Industrial Infrastructur e Development Corporation, the petitioner contended that Shed No. 42 could not h ave been allotted to the respondent No. 5 without apprising the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, it has been state d that the petitioner company was allotted with Shed No. 42, 45, 46, 47 and 48 i n the industrial estate, Bamunimaidum as per lease deed dated 4.3.1992. However, the petitioner company vide its letter dated 30.3.1992 informed the Directorate of Industries, Assam about the accommodation of the respondent No. 5 in Shed No . 42. By the said letter, the petitioner company also requested the Director of Industries, Assam to approve the respondent No. 5 to carry out their work in She d No. 42. By the said letter, the petitioner company had also intimated the Dire ctor of Industries that the respondent No. 5 had submitted application for allot ment of an industrial shed. Accordingly the matter was placed before the Shed Al lotment Committee and as per its decision, the shed No. 42 was allotted in favou r of the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 6.12.1993. Although the respondent N o. 5 was in physical possession of shed No. 42, but due to non-fulfillment of so me formalities, the said allotment was not completed. The Shed Allotment Committ ee meeting held on 5.7.1999 confirmed the allotment of shed No. 42 in favour of the respondent No. 5 as was allotted earlier vide letter dated 6.12.1993. Pursuant to the aforesaid allotment, a lease deed was executed with the responde nt No. 5 on 1.4.2004. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents have ann exed Annexure-1 letter dated 30.3.1992 addressed to the Director of Industries b y the petitioner stating therein the accommodation of the respondent No. 5 in sh ed No. 42 with the request to accord approval towards carrying out work by the r espondent No. 5 in shed No. 42. Along with the affidavit, other documents pertai ning to the statement made in the said affidavit have also been enclosed. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, while reiterating and reaffirmin g the stand in the writ petition, it has been stated that shed No. 42 was allott ed to the respondent No. 5 illegally. In response to the said reply affidavit, t he respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed a rejoinder affidavit, in which, it has be en stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2006 for cancellation of the shed No. 45, 46, 47 and 48 as the condition of allotment has been violated by the petitioner. It has been stated in the said rejoinder affid avit that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of Rs. 9,47,160/-. Further s tatement made in the affidavit is that Shed No. 42 was allotted to the responden t No. 5 with the full knowledge of the petitioner. Further statement made in the said affidavit is that the petitioner has shifted its industrial activities to Birkuchi. However, the sheds other than Shed No. 42 allotted to it are still in their occupation without any activities. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that although the Shed No. 42 has been allotted in favour of the resp ondent No. 5, but the rent is being paid by the petitioner. Ms. A. Devi, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2 and 3, was requested to obtain instr uction, who has since been furnished with the instruction by letter dated 4.12.2 012 addressed to her by the Managing Director, AIIDC. As per the said letter, th e petitioner had paid rent for Sheds No. 42, 45, 46, 47 and 48 upto 30.6.2004 an d from 1.7.2004 onwards the petitioner had been paying rent only for the Sheds N o. 45, 46, 47 and 48. So far as the Shed No. 42 is concerned, the respondent No. 5 is paying the rent. The letter further reveals that the petitioner has defaul ted in making payment of rent in respect the sheds under its occupation amountin g to Rs. 15,18,524/-. As per the said letter, the said sheds are lying idle with out any industrial activities for the last four years depriving the new entrepre neurs for setting up new industrial units. Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the Shed No. 4 2 has been allotted to it after observing all the necessary formalities and pres ently it is in occupation of the respondent No. 5 and has been paying rent for t he same. An industrial lease deed having been executed between the AIIDC and the responde nt No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 being a separate entity without any nexus with the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim that the respondent No. 5 must unde r it and that the Shed No. 42 should continue under it. As reflected in the afor esaid letter dated 4.12.2012, the petitioner is also not in occupation of other Sheds, as a result of which, there is no industrial activities therein. The peti tioner has been occupying the sheds, without any activities, for which, new entr epreneurs are deprived of allotment of sheds. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.