[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
M/S Nagad Narayan Agro Food Private … vs Rajasthan State Industrial … on 22 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:17974]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13890/2021
Nagad Narayan Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. E 593-596 & F-
609-615, Industrial Area, Karni (Extension) Bikaner, Postal
Address F-137, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner, Rajasthan
through its Director Narayan Das Tulsani S/o Late Shri Kishan
Chand Tulsani, Aged About 63 Years, R/o A-13, Karni Nagar,
Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Government
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner (Investment And NRI), Bureau of
Investment &Promotion, Government ff Rajasthan,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development &
Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur 302005.
4. Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Limited,
Industrial Area, Bichhwal, Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5954/2025
M/s Nagad Narayan Agro Food Private Limited, Plot No. E-593
-596 and F-609-615, Industrial Area, Karni (Extension)
Bikaner, Rajasthan, Postal Address F-137, Bichhwal Industrial
Area, Bikaner, Rajasthan Through Its Director Narayan Das
Tulsani S/o Late Shri Kishan Chand Tulsani, Aged About 67
Years, R/o A-13, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Limited, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
Through Its Chairman.
2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (2 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
Development and Investment Corporation Limited,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Unit
Office, Industrial Area, Bichhwal, Bikaner.
4. The Estate Officer, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Unit
Office, Industrial Area, Bichhwal, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Adv.
Ms.Twinkle Purohit, Adv.
Mr. Mudit Naghpal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 03/04/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 22/04/2025
1) This order disposes S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13890/2021
and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2025.
2) The Writ Petition No. 13890/2021 challenges the
proceedings pending before the Infrastructure Development
Committee (hereinafter referred to as “IDC”) of the Rajasthan
State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “RIICO”) on the grounds that the
Chairman of RIICO, who decided the petitioner’s first appeal, is
also a member of the IDC, which is competent to decide the
second appeal and the same is in violation of the principles of
natural justice, specifically the principle that no person shall be a
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (3 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
judge in his own cause and that the adjudicating authority must
be impartial and act without any kind of bias.
3) The Writ Petition No.5954/2025 is filed challenging the
show cause notice of eviction issued under Rajasthan Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1964”)
4) The brief facts leading to the present writ petitions are
that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies
Act. The petitioner was allotted industrial plots No. E-593 to E-
596, and F-609 to F-615 in the Industrial Area Karni (Extension)
for setting up an industrial unit for the manufacture of sugar-
based products with an investment of Rs. 39.62 crores.
Subsequently, a lease deed was executed on 30.09.2012 between
the petitioner and RIICO. One of the conditions of the allotment
was that the petitioner was required to commence production on
the allotted land by 10.04.2019. The Senior Regional Manager of
RIICO, Bikaner, issued a notice dated 30.04.2019 to the petitioner
to show cause why the allotment of land should not be canceled
for failing to commence production on the land as per the
conditions of the allotment. The petitioner submitted an
explanation in response to the notice, claiming that RIICO itself
had failed to obtain Environmental Clearance until 11.04.2017
and, therefore, it could not place the blame on the petitioner.
5) The Respondent No. 4, being dissatisfied with the
explanation, passed an order dated 25.11.2019, canceling the
allotment of land made in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (4 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
filed an appeal before the Chairman of RIICO, and by order dated
13.12.2019, the Chairman dismissed the first appeal. Against the
dismissal, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the IDC
of RIICO. Such proceedings are currently pending before the IDC.
6) The case set up by the respondents shows that the
respondents allotted industrial plots to the petitioner in terms of
the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules of 1979”). The conditions of allotment indicate that the
petitioner was required to set up the industry within two years
from the date of allotment, with a minimum investment of Rs.
39.62 crores. The RIICO obtained the Environmental Clearance
certificate on 11.04.2017. Till then, the petitioner could not
commence any project work. The respondents issued notices on
20.12.2017, 05.03.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.06.2018, 05.11.2018,
and 11.01.2019, asking the petitioner to complete the project
within two years from the date of Environmental Clearance, i.e.,
by 10.04.2019. The petitioner, however, could not complete the
project within the stipulated time. The petitioner submitted an
application for an extension of time and also requested a reduction
in the minimum investment requirement. This request was
forwarded to RIICO, but it was subsequently rejected. In these
circumstances, a show-cause notice was issued, asking for an
explanation regarding the proposed cancellation of the allotment.
Having found the explanation unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 4
canceled the allotment of land. The petitioner availed the remedy
of filing a first appeal, but was unsuccessful. The second appeal
lies before the IDC, and the petitioner also filed the second appeal
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (5 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
before the IDC. The IDC consists of the following authorities: (i)
Chairman of RIICO, (ii) Managing Director of RIICO, (iii)
Commissioner of Industries, (iv) Commissioner of Investment &
NRI, and (v) Managing Director of Rajasthan Finance Corporation.
The decision is to be made by a majority. The respondents refuted
the petitioner’s allegation of bias.
7) The respondents also pleaded that, in pursuance of the
cancellation order, a show-cause notice was issued under the Act
of 1964 for eviction and the challenge to such an eviction notice is
premature and they prayed for the dismissal of both writ petitions.
8) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
9) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the first appellate authority is the
Chairman of RIICO, who is also the Chairman of the IDC, which is
required to hear second appeals and such a constitution of the
IDC, which is required to hear the second appeal of the petitioner,
is against the principles of natural justice. According to him, if the
second appeal is decided by the IDC, which includes the Chairman
of RIICO and the MD of RIICO, it would amount to an appeal from
Caesar to Caesar, violating the principle of fair play. The same
person cannot perform dual roles, as this contravenes the principle
that no one shall be a judge in their own cause, leading to an
apparent bias.
10) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of
(i) Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., reported
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (6 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2218, (ii) Amar Nath Chowdury Vs.
Braithwaite & Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Supreme
Court 678 and (iii) A.U. Kureshi Vs. High Court of Gujarat &
Anr., reported in (2009) 1 SCR 879.
11) Per contra, the argument of learned counsel appearing for
the RIICO is that although, the Chairman of RIICO is the
Chairman of the IDC, they are not the same person/individual. It
is also the submission that the Committee is not a single-member
body; it consists of various other independent authorities who are
unconnected with RIICO, and the decision would be made by the
majority. Therefore, there is no violation of the basic foundational
principle that no person shall be a judge in their own cause.
12) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
also submitted that the doctrine of necessity excludes the
application of principles of natural justice. Even though some of
the members who are part of the IDC and involved in decision
making, such a decision is not invalid even if it violates the
principle of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case
of ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 327.
13) I have considered the contentions of both the parties
and carefully perused the material available on record.
14) In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to
refer to relevant provisions of Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1979,
which reads hereunder:-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (7 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
“24 (2) Review/Appeal
(a) – Review
1. Any person who is aggrieved with the cancellation order
issued by the authority concerned is eligible to file review
application before the Reviewing Authority.
2. Review application shall lie subject to condition that party
has not filed any appeal under RIICO Disposal of Land
Rules, 1979, if :
i. Any error apparently on face of record;
ii. Any error of interpretation of rule/law;
3. Such review application shall be filed within 45 days from
the date of passing of order subject to condition that
order sent by registered A/D or Speed Post and also
through e-mail, if available with record.
4. The Reviewing Authority would be the authority who
passes any order under the provisions of RIICO Disposal
of Land Rules, 1979.
5. No application fee would be payable to file review
application.
(b) – Appeal
1. If any person is aggrieved by any order passed by any
competent authority of the Corporation pertaining to
cancellation order under the RIICO Disposal of Land
Rules 1979, he may file an appeal before the Appellate
Authority.
2. The Appellate Authority for hearing the First
Appeal/Second Appeal shall be as follows;
(i) In case the cancellation order is issued by the Unit
Head concerned at his level, without consultation
with head office – Managing Director.
Second Appeal shall lie before the Chairman.
(ii) In case the cancellation order is issued by the Unit
Headconcerned on the directions of the head office
– Chairman Second Appeal shall lie before the
Infrastructure Development Committee (IDC) of the
Board of Directors, provided that it can be
established in the plea that there is error apparent
on the face of the record that has not been taken
into consideration by the cancellation and appellate
authority.
3. Such appeal shall lie before Appellate authority in
following conditions;
i. Any review/restoration application is rejected by the
competent authority; and/or;
ii. The party did not prefer the review /restoration
application against the cancellation order; and/or;
iii. If case is not covered under the restoration policy.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (8 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
iv. If Appellant prefers to file second Appeal against
order passed in first Appeal.
Provided that the plot for which appeal is being
filed, is still not re-allotted.”
A reading of the above rules clearly indicate that if the
cancellation order is passed by the Unit Head without consultation with
the Head Office, the first appeal lies with the Managing Director, and the
second appeal lies with the Chairman. If the cancellation order is issued
by the Unit Head on the directions of the Head Office, then the first
appeal lies with the Chairman, and the second appeal lies with the
Infrastructure Development Committee (IDC) of the Board of Directors
of RIICO.
15) In the present case, the facts on record show that the
first appeal was decided by Mr. Kuldeep Ranka, the Chairman of
RIICO. The Chairman of RIICO is also the Chairman of the IDC of
the Board of Directors of RIICO, and there are four other
authorities in IDC, and the decision must be made by majority. It
is also an admitted fact that when the second appeal was filed, the
Chairman of RIICO is the same individual who passed the order in
the first appeal, and the same individual was the Chairman of the
IDC in his capacity as a Chairman of RIICO. However, the situation
now is that the individual who is now Chairman of the IDC
(Chairman of RIICO) is a different individual, and he is not the
same person who passed the order in the first appeal, although he
holds the post of Chairman, RIICO.
16) The question before this Court is whether such a
constitution is legally flawed and contrary to the principles of
natural justice, particularly the principle that no person can be a
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (9 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
judge in his own cause. A close examination of various decisions
of the Apex Court, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, it is clear that no person shall be a judge in his own
cause, and the adjudicating authority must be impartial and act
without any form of bias. Bias can take different forms, including
pecuniary, personal, or subject-matter bias. The principles further
clarify that an individual cannot perform dual roles, and the same
person cannot sit as the decision-maker in both the first and
second appeals. This ratio was laid down by the Supreme Court in
the context of an individual performing dual roles, either as the
original authority, the appellate authority, or the further appellate
authority.
17) The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that though the individual may not be the same,
the Chairman who is the competent authority to decide the first
appeal cannot be part of IDC and preside over the proceedings to
consider the second appeal, which was filed against the order
passed by different individual in the capacity of Chairman, RIICO.
The underlying principle is that dual function is not permissible on
account of established rules against bias. The principles of bias is
based on actual bias and apparent or inferential bias. If the same
individual is functioning in a dual role, it would amount to an
apparent or inferential bias. This means that same individual is
disqualified to sit in appeal against his own order. In the present
context of the facts though the Chairman of RIICO is the
designated authority to hear the first appeal and also Chairman of
the IDC, if the individual who took a decision in first appeal and
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (10 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
the individual, who presides the Committee of IDC in capacity of
Chairman RIICO, is a one person, it is clearly against the
principles of a judge deciding in his own cause. However, if the
individual is different, it cannot be said that he is deciding his own
cause. Thus, the constitution of IDC cannot be said to be invalid.
18) Further, in the present case, the IDC consists of four
different authorities of different fields and total strength of the
Committee is five members, including the MD, RIICO. The decision
is of the majority. Such a constitution of the IDC would be said to
be against the principles of natural justice if the order, which is to
be examined by the said authority passed by same individual in
the capacity of first appellate authority. In the present case, the
Chairman of the Committee, which is hearing the second appeal,
is different individual though holding the post of Chairman, RIICO.
Therefore, the principles which are laid down in the various
decisions are not strictly applicable to such a situation. The
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not able
to produce any of the decision of the Apex Court, which would say
that even individuals are different they cannot hear the appeal.
19) The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner is not relevant to the facts in the present case.
The contention the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is
devoid of merit and the same is rejected.
20) The contention of the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents are that the principle of necessity can be invoked in
the present case even if the Chairman, RIICO though different
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (11 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
individual incurs disqualification. The principles relating to doctrine
of necessity has been recognized by the Apex Court in the case of
J. Mohan Patra & Co. & Anr. Vs. State of Orisa and Anr.,
reported in 1985 (1) SCR 238 p. 112 and the same was
considered by the Apex Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu Vs.
Union of India, reported in MANU/SC/0285/1990 and the Court
held in para 105 as here under:-
“105. …..The doctrine of necessity would be
applicable in a situation of this nature. The doctrine
has been elaborated, in Halsbury’s Laws of England,
4th Edition, p, 89, paragraph 73, where it was
reiterated that even if all the members of the Tribunal
competent to determine a matter were subject to
disqualification, they might be authorised and obliged
to hear that matter, by virtue of the operation of the
common law doctrine of necessity, An adjudicator who
is subject to disqualification on the ground of bias or
interest in the matter which he has to decide may in
certain circumstances be required to adjudicate if
there is no other person who is competent or
authorised to be adjudicator or if a quorum cannot be
formed without him or if no other competent tribunal
can be constituted……”
21) As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents, such a doctrine can be pressed into service, if the
person, who decided, suffers from disqualification unless it is
shown that there is no other person, who is competent or
authorized to be adjudicator or if a quorum cannot be formed
without him or if no other competent tribunal is constituted.
22) In the present case, IDC is appointed by the Board of
Director of RIICO. The Board of Directors can re-constitute the
IDC excluding the Chairman, RIICO or the Managing Director, in
case, the individuals, who decided the first appeal and who is part
of decision making in the second appeal are same. In the present
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17974] (12 of 12) [CW-5954/2025]
case such a situation did not arise as individual, who decided the
first appeal, is no more in individual participating in the second
appeal though the authority may be same. Therefore, the
principles doctrine of necessity has no relevance in the present
context of the facts. Therefore, the first writ petition is devoid of
merit and required to be dismissed.
23) The show-cause notice challenged in one of the writ
petition is only consequential proceedings. It is nothing but an
execution proceedings taken up in pursuance of order of
cancellation made by the first appellate authority, which order is
still in force and it is not stayed by the second appellate authority
during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the challenge
made in the second writ petition to the show cause notice is
devoid of merit and the same is also required to be dismissed.
24) In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
25) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
26) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK/-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:08:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link