This Appeal has been filed by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short ‘the RIICO’) against the
judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, M/s. HNB Asia Limited
has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the respondent for allotment of industrial plot as per the policy
applicable at the time of filing of the application by it pursuant to Rule 3(W) of RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the Rules of
1979’). The respondent in the writ petition challenged order dated 10.10.2012 and 16.01.2013 whereby allotment of industrial plot in its favour was
cancelled.
Respondent No. 1 made an application to the appellants for preferential allotment of industrial land measuring 18000 sq. metres in Industrial Area
Ramchandrapura, Jaipur under Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 for setting up industry of all types of furnitures, handicrafts etc. along with keenness
money of 10% of the development charges calculated at the prevailing rate of development charges i.e. Rs. 4,500/- per sq. metres. However, before
its case could be considered by the Sub Committee of the RIICO, an amendment in Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 was made on 13.08.2012
providing that the minimum investment of Rs. 10 crores should be made by the applicant in its project, of which the cost of land and building should not
exceed 20% of the total cost. As per Annexure-8 to the writ petition, total amount of Rs. 11.65 crores was shown by Respondent No. 1 to be invested
in the project. Investment of Rs. 10.84 crores was proposed to be made on land and building and Rs. 0.63 crores was proposed to be invested in plant
and machinery and other fixed assets. Since amended Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 required maximum 20% of the investment on plant and
machinery, the RIICO therefore considered investment of the respondent in the project as Rs. 2.96 crores only. There was only one plot bearing no.
SP-2033 measuring 17500 sq. metres available for allotment at Industrial Area Ramchandrapura, Jaipur. The Sub Committee for allotment of land of
RIICO in its meeting dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) rejected the application of Respondent No. 1 as its investment in the project
was less than 10 crores. In the same meeting, the Sub Committee also rejected the application of M/s. Sunshine Automotives for the same industrial
area as its investment was Rs. 8.62crores. However, M/s. Siddheshwar Gums Pvt. Ltd. whose investment in the project was Rs. 34.08 crores was
allotted plot No. SP-2033 measuring 17500 sq. metres. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved filed appeal, which was rejected vide communication dated
16.01.2013 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition).
It were these two orders which Respondent No. 1 challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the condition of investment of more than Rs. 10
crores out of which the investment in land and building cannot be more than 20% of the cost of the project could not be applied retrospectively to its
case. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the said amendment would apply to all pending applications where the
allotment of the land has not been made so far. Moreover, the appellants also contended that since there was no vacant land in the Industrial Area,
Ramchandrapura, Jaipur, allotment of the land in that area cannot be made. Allegation of discrimination was denied by the appellants. The learned
Single has, however, allowed the writ petition with direction to the appellants to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for allotment as per the policy
existing at the time of filing of the application.
Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that the rule existing on the date of
filing of the application would be applicable in the pending applications, even though allotment of the land has been made subsequent to the amendment
of the rule whereas it is settled that law/rules applicable at the time of allotment have to be applied. Respondent No. 1 has no vested right to claim
allotment of an industrial plot on any particular site merely because it had submitted application prior to amendment in the relevant rule. Reliance in this
connection has been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Anand Food Products Vs. RIICO, 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 17.9
Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court inS tate of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s. Hind Stone etc., AIR 1981 SC 71,1 wherein
it was held that no one has a vested right to the grant of renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant of
renewal of a lease dealt with a particular way, by applying a particular provision. In the absence of any vested right in anyone, an application for a
lease has to be necessarily dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long
delay since making of the application. Learned counsel submitted that the same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of W.B. Vs.
Terra Firma Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 125; Union of India & Others Vs. Indian Charge Chrome & Another, (1999) 7 SCC 31;4
V. Karnal Durai Vs. District Collector, Tuticorin & Another, (1999) 1 SCC 475 and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Other
Vs. Ananta Saha & Others, (2011) 5 SCC 142.
Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel argued that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that Respondent No. 1 was discriminated in the matter
of allotment is wholly baseless because allotment of the land was made in favour of those, who were having capital investment of not less than 10
crores. Perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) would show that application of Respondent No. 1 was
rejected as its investment minus investment in land and building was considered to be only Rs. 2.96 crores whereas investment made by M/s.
Siddheshwar Gums Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 34.08 crores. Learned Single Judge therefore misread and misunderstood the material on record. It is argued
that learned Single Judge erred in law in directing that if the land is not available at Industrial Area, Ramchandrapura, Jaipur, Respondent No. 1 may
be allotted land in nearby industrial area whereas as per the policy of the appellants, separate application has to be made for the purpose of allotment
of industrial plot in respect of each industrial area.
Mr. R. K. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner opposed the appeal and argued that Respondent
No. 1 applied for allotment of the land in industrial area under Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 and submitted online application on 24.02.2012 followed
by application on hard copy on 05.03.2012 before the concerned officer of the appellant. Respondent No. 1 is entitled for allotment on preferential
basis in NRI category. Respondent No. 1 moved such application for establishing plant of garment and wooden handicrafts and hand paper articles.
However, the RIICO did not take any action on such application for quite some time. Thereafter, the RIICO malafidely and with oblique motive
convened meeting of Infrastructure Development Committee (IDC) on 13.08.2012 and took a decision under Agenda Item No. 36 that minimum fixed
capital investment limit in the case of preferential allotment of land under Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 for the project being set up by the
NRI/PIO/OCB/FDI and IT industries shall be Rs. 10 crores and for evaluation purpose the land and building cost will not exceed 20% of the total cost
of the project. Application of Respondent No. 1 was mechanically rejected on 10.10.2012. Learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ
petition. Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 provides for allotment of land in industrial area on preferential basis to NRI/PIO/OCB/FDI. The respondent
was the only NRI and M/s. Sunshine Automotives and M/s. Shri Siddheshwar Gums Private Limited were not NRI or coming under any of the
categories as mentioned above. The Sub Committee of the appellant-RIICO has no jurisdiction to reject the application of Respondent No. 1.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record.
It is not disputed that when the case of Respondent No. 1 was taken up for allotment of industrial plot in the meeting of Sub Committee of RIICO on
10.10.2012, the policy for allotment had already been changed by the RIICO. The Infrastructure Development Committee in its meeting held on
13.08.2012 at agenda item no. 36 took the following policy decision with regard to allotment to be made under Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979 to the
projects being set up by NRI/PIO:
“Item No.36: Review of earlier decision regarding definition of NRI/PIO and for taking a view on the appeals filed against the decision taken by
the Committee constituted under Rule 3(W).
The Committee discussed the agenda and accorded approval for:
a)........
b)........
c)........
d) Minimum fixed capital investment limit in case of preferential allotment of land under Rule 3(W) to the projects being set-up by NRI/PIO/OCB/FDI
and IT industry shall be Rs.10.00 crores. However, for evaluation purposes, the land and building cost should not exceed 20% of the total cost of
project. This provision shall be effective from the date of this meeting.
e)........â€
According to the aforesaid decision, interested parties were required to invest minimum of Rs. 10 crores. It was also provided that for evaluation
purpose land and building cost should not exceed 20% of the total cost. This provision has been made applicable on the date of the meeting itself i.e.
13.08.2012. Applying the aforesaid criteria, when the case of Respondent No. 1 and other two applicants namely M/s. Sunshine Automotives and
M/s. Shri Siddheshwar Gums Private Limited was considered by the Sub Committee in its meeting held on 10.10.2012, it was found that Respondent
had invested only Rs. 2.96 crores, which is less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 crores in the NRI category. This happened because Respondent
claimed its investment in the following terms:
“Land & Site Development     Rs.8.46 Crores
Building & Civil Works                      Rs.2.38 Crores
Plant and Machinery               Rs.0.56 Crores
Misc. Fixed Assets                  Rs.0.07 Crores
Total                                       Rs.11.65 Croresâ€
The money which Respondent No. 1 proposed to invest on the land and site development was Rs. 8.46 crores and on Building and Civil Works Rs.
2.38 crores, total of which would come to Rs. 10.84 crores. Minimum proposed investment in plant and machinery was Rs. 0.56 crores and on misc.
fixed assets Rs. 0.07 crores, total of which would come to Rs. 0.63 crores whereas according to the mandate of Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979,
investment of only 20% of the plant and machinery was to be considered. Therefore, total investment of the respondent in the proposed project was
Rs. 2.96 crores. Argument of discrimination also could not be substantiated because so far as M/s. Sunshine Automotives is concerned its application
was also rejected whereas investment of M/s. Shri Siddheshwar Gums Private Limited was Rs. 34.08 crores, which amount is much more than Rs. 10
crores. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s. Hind Stone etc. (supra) Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind was dealing with a case where application
for renewal of lease was made by the respondent long before commencement of Rule 8C of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 but
was disposed of after its commencement. It was held that no one has vested right therefore the rules in force at the time of disposal of the application
for allotment will be applicable. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Indian Charge Chrome & Another
(supra); V. Karnal Durai (supra) and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Other (supra).
In view of above, we are not persuaded to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeal deserves to succeed
and the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside.
