legitimate expectation


Sir/mam,  here i am attaching my petition against Govt. of Guj. regarding Vibrant Gujarat globle Summit (MOU). This petition is based on legitimate expectation and already filed in the Hon'ble Guj. High Court through senior advocate. And notice has been issued by the Court. Petition is pending for the final dispose.

i am really very worried about this case because huge amount of time and money expense after this matter, which u can see in this petition.

so kindly see the attached petition and help me out by your comments,views and experiences.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT :- SURAT

 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.         OF 20      11  

 

 

In the matter of Articles 14, 19 & 226 of the Constitution of India;

 

And

 

In the matter of the Scheme undertaken by the Government of Gujarat, popularly known as “Vibrant Gujarat”;

 

And

 

In the matter of not giving possession of the allotted land to the petitioners for last more than four years

 

And

 

In the matter between

 

1.    Florida Metal Trading LLC,

Throug its Proprietor

Address at 3363 W, Vine St.,

Suite 205,

Kissimmee, FL 34741.

USA.

 

 

2.    Florida Infrastructure Development Private Limited

       Having its office at M-11, Empire State Building,

Ring Road,

       Surat.                          …… Petitioners

                                 

 

       Versus

 

 

1.    The State of Gujarat

       Notice to be served to the Chief Secretary,

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

2.    Principal Secretary

       To the Hon'ble Chief Minister

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

3.    Principal Secretary

       Revenue Department,

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

4.    Principal Secretary

       Tourism Department,

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

 

5.    Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited

       Block No. 16/17, 4th Floor,

       Udyog Bhavan,

       Sector 11,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

6.    Hon'ble Minister of Tourism

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

 

7.    Hon'ble Minister of Revenue

       Sachivalaya,

       Gandhinagar.

 

 

 

8.    The Collector,

       Surat,

       Having office at Collectorate office,

       Nanpura,

       Surat.

 

 

9.    Krishi University, Navsari

       Navsari.                              …… Respondents

             

 

To,

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice

And other Hon'ble Judges of

High Court of Gujarat.

Humble appeal of the petitioners above named

 

1.   The petitioners by way of the present petition challenges the very arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable action on the part of the State Government and its Officers and the Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited governed by the State Government by which having got good publicity regarding “Vibrant Gujarat – 2007” and having accepted the MOU filed by the petitioners and having decided to allot 4 Lac Sq. Mtr. of land bearing Survey No.507 instead as demanded 6,88,130 Sq. Mts. of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat to the petitioners, has thereafter abruptly without hearing the petitioners cancelled the proposal contained in the MOU by the letter dated 18.12.2008 written by the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri Kailashnathan saying that since both the parties have applied for the same land, proposal is cancelled and advised the petitioners to look for the alternate land.  This action was patently arbitrary. 

 

2.   There was no question of considering the proposal made by Chhatrala India Hotel Group since it was made after the petitioners’ MOU for the said land was already executed in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2007 and the State Government decided to allot the said land in consultation with the Collector, Surat and actually the valuation was made by the Valuation Committee and thereafter the Government and the Valuation was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Mtr. and the petitioners shown their willingness to take the land at that rate.  This is a clear case where the Hon'ble Court would know how the petitioner No.1 who is an NRI and the Directors are NRIs and the petitioner No.2 which was specially floated in India for the said purpose have been duped into the great publicity made by the Vibrant Gujarat, 2007 and the Government having taken credit of the MOU which was entered into between the Government and the petitioners has thereafter backed out from the same.  This has defeated the legitimate expectation of the petitioners from the State Government which it was bound to honour.  Even the State Government was equitably estopped from cancelling the proposal as was done.  The petitioners had spent lacks of rupees after executing the MOU and had in fact, appointed a very reputed Company based in England, namely, PGA Design Consulting and got the report and master plan prepared at a very high cost of Rs.8 Lacs and alsos for 15 visits from USA costing Rs.20 Lacs and cost of Rs.1 Lac for Company incorporation in India, which report and master plan was duly submitted to the Government and relevant authorities and they had not objected to the same.  Such an attitude of the Government has left the petitioners high and dry and has also damaged the reputation of the State of Gujarat and its Government in the eyes of NRIs who are very keen to invest in India like the petitioners.  In fact, such an attitude has brought the State Government in disrepute.

 

3.   It is submitted that the said Company who is said to have made proposal for the same land, namely, Chhatrala India Hotel Group  has already been allotted alternate land as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the land belonging to the Navsari Krishi University.  By the order dated 08.12.2010, the Chhatrala India Hotel Group has already been allotted the land of the Krishi University, Navsari.  The petitioners thereafter followed the matter with the State Government clearly pointing out that since the land at Abhava is still open as per the report of the Collector, Surat, and was available and since now there are no claimants since the one claimant has already got the other land for its project, the land at Abhava should be given to the petitioners which has opted for the said land at Abhava.  Even for that, regular correspondence has been entered into for the last two years but even then, the same has not fructified.  It is, under these circumstances, that with heavy heart though it may damage the reputation of our own Government in the eyes of other NRIs, the petitioners are required to approach this Hon'ble Court to get justice from this Hon'ble Court so that in future, the NRI investors like the petitioners do not feel embarassed to participate in Vibrant Gujarat Project.

 

4.   The facts giving rise to the present Special Civil Application are as under :-

 

5.   That on 20.09.2006, the petitioners wrote to the Collector, Surat requesting to give detail as the petitioners wanted to invest in Hotel Projects and Hospitality Sectors.  A copy of the  letter dated 20.09.2006 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure A.  In reply to the same, the respondents vide their letter dated 21.09.2006 submitted details, such as Project Report, with village map.  A copy of the said letter dated 21.09.2006 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure B.  Thereafter, on 13.01.2007, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed in Vibrant Gujarat Project Summit between the petitioners and the Government for the land bearing Survey No. 507 of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat.  A copy of the MOU is annexed hereto and marked Annexure C.  On 25.01.2007, the petitioners wrote letter to the respondents requesting them to allot the land as per the MOU and as selected by them as per the offer of the Government.  A copy of letter dated 25.01.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure D.  On 02.02.2007, letter by Manager (Investment) to Collector, Surat stating that land at Abhava be alotted at the earliest.  A copy of the letter dated 02.02.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure E.  On 05.02.2007, Principal Secretary wrote to the Collector, Surat to expedite as it is an NRI Project under Vibrant Gujarat, 2007.   A copy of the letter dated 05.02.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure F.  On 27.02.2007, Manager (Investment) wrote another letter to the Collector, Surat.  On 23.03.2007, Valuation report was submitted by the Valuation Committee fixing the market value at Rs.2000/- per Sq. Mtr.  A copy of the said letter dated 23.03.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure G.  On 02.04.2007, letter by Collector, Surat to PGA Design to furnish certain details.  On 17.04.2007, zoning certified agricultural zone was submitted.  A copy of letter dated 17.04.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure J. 

 

6.   On 12.04.2007, Nodal for the Project Officer was appointed.  On 13.04.2007, again Manager, Investment wrote to the Collector, Surat to allot the said land.  A copy of the said letter dated 13.04.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure H. On 28.06.2007, letter by Principal Secretry Shri Chakravarthy to Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to give the said land immediately.  A copy of the said letter dated 28.06.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure I. This was done since Chhatrala demanded the same.  The matter was carried to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department since Collector wrote to the Revenue Department.  The matter was struck there on the issue of overlapping.  Thereafter, Tourism Secretary called the representative of the petitioner to solve the issue.  In that meeting, petitioners were told to accept 4 Lac Sq. Mtr. And the matter was placed before Chief Secretary for the compromise of issue and Chief Secretary on 28.06.2007 settled the overlapping issue and Tourism Secretary wrote a letter to the Revenue Secretary and ordered to give 4 Lac Sq. Mtr. as agreed.  This had completely solved the overlapping issue.

 

7.   On 23.07.2007, matter was referred to the Government for valuation.  On 2.8.2007, valution of Rs.2000 per Sq. Mtr. Was fixed and the letter was written through department to obtain environment clearance certificate.  A copy of the letter dated 2.8.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure K. On 09.01.2008, the petitioner Company got its new name.  On 18.02.2008, the petitioners wrote to the Collector asking him to provide latest status.  A copy of the letter dated 18.02.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure L.  On 15.06.2008, the petitioners wrote to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chief Secretary informing that they have come to know that Chhatral Group has shown interest and their application is already pending and were promised and the petitioners have spent huge money.  A copy of the letter dated 15.06.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure M.  

 

8.   On 11.09.2008, Manager (Investment) directed the petitioners to remain present on 22.09.2008.  A copy of the letter dated 11.09.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure N.  On 14.09.2008, the Hon’ble Minister Shri Jaynarayan Vyas sought explanation from the Chief Secretary regarding the grievances of the petitioners.  A copy of the letter dated 14.11.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure O.  On 18.12.2008, by the impugned letter, the Hon’ble Principal Secterary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister wrote to the petitioners that since both the parties have applied for the same land, the proposal is cancelled and petitioners should look for alternate land.  A copy of the letter dated 18.12.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure P.  On 25.12.2008, the petitioners wrote letter to the Hon'ble Minister for Tourism requesting him to intervene since the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister has cancelled the proposal.  A copy of the letter dated 25.12.2008 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure Q.  On 06.01.2009, the petitioners reiterated his request to Hon'ble Minister  Shri Jaynarayan Vyas.  A copy of letter dated 06.01.2009 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure R.  On 12.01.2009, the petitioners entered into second MOU.  A copy of the said letter dated 12.01.2009 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure S.  On 30.03.2010, the petitioners reluctantly without foregoing their claimn on Abhava land wrote to take land of the Krishi University.  A copy of the said letter dated 30.03.2010 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure T.  On 26.05.2010, the Collector wrote to the petitioners saying that he cannot allot the said land as it belongs to University.  A copy of the said letter dated 26.05.2010 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure U. 

 

9.   Thereafter, since Chatrala India Hotel Group was already allotted other land, petitioners again rigorously persued their claim for Abhava land as all decks were now cleared. 

 

10.                     Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said action of the respondent authorities by canceling the proposal of the petitioners by the order dated 18.12.2008 by the respondent No.1 and nonallotment of land and the order of the Collector dated 26.11.2010, the petitioners beg to approach this Hon'ble Court under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds which are set out without prejudice to one another.

 

11.                     GROUNDS :-

 

A.  The above factual aspect leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that the action on the part of the respondents not to allot Abhava land as agreed as per MOU of Vibrant Gujarat is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  The action even not to allot the alternate land in the Krishi University, Navsari which was given in similar circumstances to Chhatrala India Hotel Group is also arbitrary and unreasonable and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation and on the principle of equitable estoppel.  The petitioners have, therefore, no alterantive but to approach Your Lordships under Your Lordship’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

B.  It is submitted that the cancellation of the proposal of the petitioners arbitrarily by the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri Kailasnathan by his order dated 18.12.2008 is patently bad and illegal and adhereing to the said letter, even after the land at village Abhava was available for alloting to the petitioners, is also patently bad and illegal.  It is nothing but arbitrary.  It can be seen that right from 13.01.2007 till 18.12.2008, there were negotiations between the petitioners and the State Government and its various Officers.  In fact, decision was already taken to allot the land at Abhava to the petitioners.  Even valuation was made and the petitioners showed his readiness and willingness to pay the amount as determined by the State Government.  The petitioners had already arranged for finance of the project from American Banks to the tune of maximum 20,000,000/- i.e. 20 Million US $.  The said letter is annexed hereto and marked Annexure V.  It is not known what happened overnight that Principal Secretary Shri Kailashnathan, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, took such a decision to cancel the proposal of the petitioners contained in the MOU dated 13.01.2007 after about two years when the Chief Secretary who is the highest authority had already solved the overlapping issue and decided to allot 4 Lac Sq. Mtr. To the petitioners on the compromise basis.  No reasons are assigned by him in his letter.  Even the petitioners are not heard before passing such an order which has the net result of depriving the petitioners of its MOU entered into between the petitioners and the State Government and also has caused lot of financial loss to the petitioners who have spent almost Lacs of rupees for almost four years and the petitioner No.1 and its Directors have come from USA almost 15 times for negotiating the matter with the Government.  Even the Hon'ble Chief Minister had promised that wrong done to the petitioners will be remedied.  Inspite of this, it is surprising how the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister would take such a decision in face of such a long correspondence which has tarnished the image of the State Government.

 

C.  That the other reason given by the Collector, Surat dated 26.11.2010 is also patently bad and illeagl on the face of it since the Collector now says that the land at Abhava cannot be allotted to the petitioners only because the land is situated near the city of Surat and that the Government had instructed him to keep it for the Government.  With respect, this is nothing but a fraud.  It is a clear case of fraud.  The correspondence between the Collector, Surat and the Government and the petitioners clearly show that when the decision was taken to allot the land to the petitioners at village Abhava, the situation of the land was fully considered.  The fact that it is near to the city of Surat was also considered and thereafter allotment was finalized.  It is even too much to say that since the land is situated near the city of Surat, it cannot be allotted to be given to the petitioners.  The other reason given that it should be kept for the purposes of the Government is also on the face of it arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair in as much as Vibrant Gujarat Project is initiated by the Government itself and it is under this Project, that the land is allotted to the petitioners to carry out the purposes of the Government to see that in Gujarat, more and more people would come especially NRIs to invest and the State will prosper.  In the premises aforesaid, the twin reasons given in the letter dated 20.11.2008 cannot even be sustained.  In short, there is no valid ground on which the allotment of land at village Abhava and possession thereof could have been denied to the petitioners.

 

D. It is further submitted that the reason given by the respondent No.2 – Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Shri Kailashnathan in his letter dated 18.12.2008 also does not survive for the simple reason that it is an admitted position that now there is no overlapping and that Chhatrala India Hotel Group is already allotted another land and they are not claiming any land at village Abhava.  Therefore, for this reason also, the impugned order would be bad and illegal.

 

E.   It is submitted that the impugned action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as stated earlier as being arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.  It is submitted that it is also against the doctrine of legitimate expectation.  It is the legitimate expectation of the petitioners that the Government has itself sponsored the Vibrant Gujarat Scheme would go back upon it and cncel the proposal in the MOU which has great sanctity and if such legitimate expectation of the citizens are not respected and if the Government is allowed to go back upon its words and the solemn MOU executed by it, then there is an end of the matter and nobody in future will rely upon such Vibrant Gujarat Project.  It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation which is nothing but the fairplay in action.  The substantive concept of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is also rooted in fairness.  Put simply, what the doctrine of legitimate expectation envisages is that if the administration by a representation has created a legitimate expectation in some person, then it will be unfair on the part of the administration to whittle down or take away such legitimate expectation, at this stage. 

 

F.   It is needless to state that the said doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory expectation can be fairly invoked in the present case because the petitioners have changed their position on the representation or promise which has been made by the State Government and invested the said amount which otherwise the petitioners would not have invested.  The said doctrine of legitimate expectation can also be invoked since it was a past practice by the State Government to see that citizen is given proper assistance to see that representation from the State Government of which they have acted is fulfilled.  The said doctrine of legitimate expection is recognized by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

 

G. The petitioners say and submit that as stated in factual part of the petition, MOU was executed on 13.01.2007.  The petitioners selected the land at village Abhava on 25.01.2007 and on 2.02.2007, the letter was written by the Manager, Investment, Government of Gujarat to Collector, Surat to allot Abhava land at the earliest.  Even thereafter, the Principal Secretary had and Manager, Investment had written various letters to the Collector, Surat between 05.02.2007.  Even Nodal Agency was appointed as per the letter dated 12.04.2007.  Even on 13.04.2007, letter was written by Manager, Investment to the Collector, Surat to allot the land at village Abhava to the petitioners.  Even letter was written on 14.09.2008 by Hon'ble Minister Shri Jaynarayan Vyas being the Minister of Tourism to the Chief Secretary Rajagopalan seeking explanation regarding the cancellation of the petitioners MOU.  The petitioners had entered into further correspondence after rejection of the proposal.  The petitioners had written letter on 06.01.2009 to the Hon'ble Minister Shri Vyas quoting therein the promise given by the Hon'ble Chief Minister himself to see that their grievances will be remedied.  Thus, after there is a constant correspondence and even on 16.11.2010, letter has been written to the Collector, Surat to allot Abhava land to the petitioners saying that since there was no overlapping, there cannot be any objection to grant the said land to the petitioners.  Such a reasonable request was rejected by the Collector, Surat on 26.11.2010 only on the ground that the land is situated near city Surat and is required for the Government.  Even after that on 30.11.2010, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and send to allot Abhava land.  Thus, inspite of regular correspondence, nothing is done. 

 

H.  The petitioners submit that even apart from the grievances of the petitioners that they have not been allotted Abhava land, even discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioners which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  Even as regards the land of Krishi University, it is submitted that by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.12.2010, the part of the land of the Krishi University has already been allotted to Chhatrala India Hotel Group.  The petitioners thereafter without prejudice wrote a letter bonafide believing that there is some difficulty with the Government to allot part of the land of Krishi University to the petitioner, even at the rate which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for allotment of the said land to the said Chhatrala India Hotel Group.  Even that is also not done and the Manager (Investment) merely says that since the land belongs to Krishi University, it cannot be given while he has given the land of Krishi University to the Chahatrala Group.  With respect, he has himself allotted the said land to Chhatrala India Hotel Group after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.  It does not lie in his mouth to say that the Collector will have no power to allot such a land.  In the premises aforesaid, looking from all angles, the impugned action can be termed as nothing but arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and if timely intervention is not made by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners will suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.     

 

I.     It is pertinent to point out that Revenue Department had already written a letter dated 04.06.2005 that 404801 Sq. Mts. Of land at Bhatar Krishi University was available to be given.  While now the petitioners are not allotted the said land by saying that it cannot be given to the petitioners.  A copy of the said letter dated 04.06.2005 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure W.  On 03.01.2011, he writes a letter to the petitioners that the said land cannot be allotted to the petitioners.  Annexed hereto and marked Annexure X is the copy of the letter dated 03.01.2011.             

 

J.    On such other and further grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.

 

9.    The petitioners have a good prima facie case and are likely to succeed in this petition.  The petitioners have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. If interim relief as prayed for is not granted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.  It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice to grant the interim relief as prayed for. The petitioners have investe4d huge amounts running into lacs of rupees and that will all become nugatory.

 

10.  The petitioners state and submit that the petitioners have not filed any other application or petition either before Gujarat High Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court or in any other Court with regard to the subject matter of this petition.

 

11.  No other alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners.

 

12.  The petitioners, therefore, pray :-

 

(a)                      YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to declare that the action on the part of the State Government and its Officers and the Collector, Surat not to allot the Abhava lands as agreed as per the MOU dated 13.01.2007 to the petitioners is arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  It may be further declared that the said action is violative of the principles of legitimate expectation and that the Government is equitably estopped in both law and fact to perpetrate such an illegal action.  It may be further declared that the action on the part of the State Government and its Officers and the Tourism Corporation and Collector, Surat in not allotting even the alternate land of the Krishi University is also patently bad and illeagl, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the decision / order of Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 18.12.2008 and the order of the Collector dated 26.11.2010 by an appropriate writ, direction or order, so also the order dated 03.01.2011 by the Tourism Department rejecting even the allotment of land of Krishi University to the petitioners; 

 

(b)                     YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allot the land admeasuring 4 lac sq. mtr.  bearing Survey No.507 of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat to the petitioners as per MOU dated 13.01.2007 at the Government agreed rate of Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Mtr., and not to create any further hinderance in the development of the said land and carry out the project as per the MOU dated 13.01.2007.

 

ALTERNATIVELY

 

(c)                      YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the land admeasuring 45000 Sq. Mts., of Krishi University, Navsari to the petitioners as per the rate of Rs.32,000/- per Sq. Mtr., as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

 

(d)                     Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the land bearing Survey No.507 of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat to the petitioners as per MOU dated 13.01.2007 and not to create any further hinderance in the development of the said land and carry out the project as per the MOU dated 13.01.2007;

 

(e)                      YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

 

13.      The petitioners crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to add, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing paragraphs if and when necessary.

 

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND FOR EVER PRAY.

 

Ahmedabad.                          [R. S. Sanjanwala]

Date :-                         Advocate for the petitioners

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, ____________________________, Adult, Hindu, Residing at ________________________________, petitioner No. ___ herein do hereby on solemn affirmation say that what is stated hereinabove in paragraph No. 1 to ____ is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and I believe the same to be true.  Submissions made in paragraph ____ are based on legal advise.  Paragraph ___ contains prayer clause.

 

I say that the present special civil application has been translated, read and explained to me in Gujarati and I fully understand the contents of the same.

 

Solemnly affirmed at ____________ on this _____ day of January, 2011.                                                                                                                                                   __________________

                                              DEPONENT

 

Identified by me.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT :- AHMEDABAD

 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                OF 2011

 

Florida Metal Trading LLC                    …… Petitioner

             

       Versus

 

The State of Gujarat and others    …… Respondents

 

INDEX

 

Sr.

No.

Annexure

Particulars

Page Nos.

 

 

Memo of petition.

 

01.

A

A copy of letter dated 20.09.2006.

 

02.

B

A copy of the said letter dated 21.09.2006.

 

03.

C

A copy of the MOU.

 

04.

D

A copy of letter dated 25.01.2007.

 

05.

E

A copy of letter dated 02.02.2007.

 

06.

F

A copy of letter dated 05.02.2007.

 

07.

G

A copy of the letter dated 23.03.2007.

 

08.

H

A copy of letter dated 17.04.2007.

 

09.

I

A copy of the letter dated 2.8.2007.

 

10.

J

A copy of the letter dated 18.02.2008.

 

11.

K

A copy of the letter dated 15.06.2008.

 

12.

L

A copy of the letter dated 11.09.2008. 

 

13.

M

A copy of the letter dated 14.09.2008.

 

14.

N

A copy of the letter dated 18.12.2008. 

 

15.

O

  A copy of the letter dated 25.12.2008.

 

16.

P

A copy of letter dated 06.01.2009. 

 

17.

Q

A copy of the said letter dated 12.01.2009.

 

18.

R

A copy of the said letter dated 30.03.2010.

 

19.

S

A copy of the said letter dated 26.05.2010. 

 

 

20.

T

A copy of the letter showing that the petitioner has availed finance of the project from American Banks. 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT :- AHMEDABAD

 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                OF 2011

 

Florida Metal Trading LLC                    …… Petitioner

             

       Versus

 

The State of Gujarat and others    …… Respondents

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 

 

·        The petitioners by way of the present petition challenges the very arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable action on the part of the State Government and its Officers and the Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited governed by the State Government by which having got good publicity regarding “Vibrant Gujarat – 2007” and having accepted the MOU filed by the petitioners and having decided to allot the land bearing Survey No.507 of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat to the petitioners, has thereafter abruptly without hearing the petitioners cancelled the proposal contained in the MOU by the letter dated 18.12.2008 written by the Chief Secretary Shri Kailashnathan saying that since both the parties have applied for the same land, proposal is cancelled and advised the petitioners to look for the alternate land.  This action was patently arbitrary. 

 

·        There was no question of considering the proposal made by Chhatrala India Hotel Group since it was made after the petitioners had already opted for the said land and the State Government decided to allot the said land in consultation with the Collector, Surat and actually the valuation was made by the Valuation Committee and thereafter the Government and the Valuation was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Mtr. and the petitioners shown their willingness to take the land at that rate.  This is a clear case where the Hon'ble Court would know how the petitioner No.1 who is an NRI and the Directors are NRIs and the petitioner No.2 which was specially floated in India for the said purpose have been duped into the great publicity made by the Vibrant Gujarat, 2007 and the Government having taken credit of the MOU which was entered into between the Government and the petitioners has thereafter backed out from the same.  This has defeated the legitimate expectation of the petitioners from the State Government which it was bound to honour.  Even the State Government was equitably estopped from cancelling the proposal as was done.  The petitioners had spent lacks of rupees after executing the MOU and had in fact, appointed a very reputed Company based in England, namely, PGA Design Consulting and got the report made at a very high cost, which report was duly submitted to the Government and relevant authorities and they had not objected to the same.  Such an attitude of the Government has left the petitioners high and dry and has also damaged the reputation of the State of Gujarat and its Government in the eyes of NRIs who are very keen to invest in India like the petitioners.  In fact, such an attitude has brought the State Government in disrepute.

 

·        It is submitted that the said Company who is said to have made proposal for the same land, namely, Chhatrala India Hotel Group  has already been allotted alternate land as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the land belonging to the Navsari Krishi University.  By the order dated 08.12.2010, the Chhatrala India Hotel Group has already been allotted the land of the Krishi University, Navsari.  The petitioners thereafter followed the matter with the State Government clearly pointing out that since the land at Abhava is still open as per the report of the Collector, Surat, and was available and since now there are no claimants since the one claimant has already got the other land for its project, the land at Abhava should be given to the petitioners which has opted for the said land at Abhava.  Even for that, regular correspondence has been entered into for the last two years but even then, the same has not fructified.  It is, under these circumstances, that with heavy heart though it may damage the reputation of our own Government in the eyes of other NRIs, the petitioners are required to approach this Hon'ble Court to get justice from this Hon'ble Court so that in future, the NRI investors like the petitioners do not feel embarassed to participate in Vibrant Gujarat Project.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT :- AHMEDABAD

 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                OF 2011

 

Florida Metal Trading LLC                    …… Petitioner

             

       Versus

 

The State of Gujarat and others    …… Respondents

 

 

 

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

 

 

20.09.2006 :-        The petitioners wrote to the Collector, Surat requesting to give detail as the petitioners wanted to invest in Hotel Projects and Hospitality Sectors. 

 

21.09.2006 :-        The respondents submitted details with village map. 

 

13.01.2007 :-        Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed in Vibrant Gujarat Project Summit between the petitioners and the Government for the land bearing Survey No. 507 of village Abhava, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat. 

 

25.01.2007 :-        The petitioners wrote letter to the respondents requesting them to allot the land as per the MOU and as selected by them as per the offer of the Government. 

 

02.02.2007 :-        Letter by Manager (Investment) to Collector, Surat stating that land at Abhava be alotted at the earliest. 

 

05.02.2007 :-        Principal Secretary wrote to the Collector, Surat to expedite as it is an NRI Project under Vibrant Gujarat, 2007.   

 

27.02.2007 :-        Manager (Investment) wrote another letter to the Collector, Surat. 

 

23.03.2007 :-        Valuation report was submitted by the Valuation Committee fixing the market value at Rs.900/- per Sq. Mtr. 

 

02.04.2007 :-        Letter by Collector, Surat to PGA Design to furnish certain details. 

 

17.04.2007 :-        Zoning certified agricultural zone was submitted. 

 

12.04.2007 :-        Nodal for the Project Officer was appointed. 

 

13.04.2007 :-        Manager, Investment wrote to the Collector, Surat to allot the said land. 

 

28.06.2007 :-        Letter by Principal Secretry Shri Chakravarthy to Collector to give the said land immediately. 

 

23.07.2007 :-        The matter was referred to the Government for valuation. 

 

02.08.2007 :-        Valution of Rs.2000 per Sq. Mtr. Was fixed and the letter was written through department to obtain environment clearance certificate. 

 

09.01.2008 :-        The petitioner Company got its new name. 

 

18.02.2008 :-        The petitioners wrote to the Collector asking him to provide latest status. 

 

15.06.2008 :-        The petitioners wrote to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chief Secretary informing that they have come to know that Chhatral Group has shown interest and their application is already pending and were promised and the petitioners have spent huge money. 

 

11.09.2008 :-        Manager (Investment) directed the petitioners to remain present on 22.09.2008. 

 

14.09.2008 :-        The Hon’ble Minister Shri Jaynarayan Vyas sought explanation from the Chief Secretary regarding the grievances of the petitioners. 

 

18.12.2008 :-        By the impugned letter, the Hon’ble Chief Secterary wrote to the petitioners that since both the parties have applied for the same land, the proposal is cancelled and petitioners should look for alternate land. 

 

25.12.2008 :-        The petitioners wrote letter to the Hon'ble Minister for Tourism requesting him to intervene since the Chief Secretary has cancelled the proposal. 

 

06.01.2009 :-        The petitioners reiterated his request to Hon'ble Minister  Shri Jaynarayan Vyas. 

 

12.01.2009 :-        The petitioners entered into second MOU. 

 

30.03.2010 :-        The petitioners reluctantly without foregoing their claim on Abhava land wrote to take land of the Krishi University. 

 

26.05.2010 :-        The Collector wrote to the petitioners saying that he cannot allot the said land as it belongs to University. 

 

Hence, the present petition.



Attached File : 85199 180288 39 florida metal sca final.doc downloaded 156 times
 
Reply   
 
chief accountant

 

Came across a story recently. Thought to share with you all. Hope you all like it and I wish it works with you also.


Tech Support: Yes, how can I help you?

Customer: Well, after much consideration, I've decided to install Love. Can you guide me through the process?

Tech Support: Yes. I can help you. Are you ready to proceed?

Customer: Well, I'm not very technical, but I think I'm ready. What do I do first?

Tech Support: The first step is to open your Heart. Have you located your Heart?

Customer: Yes, but there are several other programs running now. Is it okay to install Love while they are running?

Tech Support: What programs are running?

Customer: Let's see, I have Past Hurt, Low Self-Esteem, Grudge and Resentment running right now.

Tech Support: No problem, Love will gradually erase Past Hurt from your current operating system. It may remain in your permanent memory but it will no longer disrupt other programs. Love will eventually override Low Self-Esteem with a module of its own called High Self-Esteem. However, you'll have to completely turn off Grudge and Resentment. Those programs prevent Love from being properly installed. Can you turn those off?

Customer: I don't know how to turn them off. Can you tell me how?

Tech Support: With pleasure. Go to your start menu and invoke Forgiveness. Do this as many times as necessary until Grudge and Resentment have been completely erased.

Customer: Okay, done! Love has started installing itself. Is that normal?

Tech Support: Yes, but remember you have only the base program. You need to begin connecting to other Hearts in order to get the upgrades.

Customer: Oops! I have an error message already. It says, "Error - Program not run on external components." What should I do?

Tech Support: Don't worry. It means the Love program is set up to run on Internal Hearts, but has not yet been run on your Heart. In non-technical terms, it simply means you have to Love yourself before you can Love others.

Customer: So, what should I do?

Tech Support: Pull down Self-Acceptance; then click on the following files: Forgive-Self; Realize Your Worth; and Acknowledge Your Limitations.

Customer: Okay, done.

Tech Support: Now, copy them to the "My Heart" directory. The system will overwrite any conflicting files and begin patching faulty programming. Also, you need to delete Self-Criticism from all directories and empty your Recycle Bin to ensure it's completely gone and never comes back.

Customer: Got it. Hey! My heart is filling up with new files. Smile is playing on my monitor and Peace and Contentment are copying themselves all over My Heart. Is this normal?

Tech Support: Sometimes. For others it takes awhile, but eventually everything gets it at the proper time. So Love is installed and running. One more thing before we hang up. Love is Freeware. Be sure to give it and its various modules to everyone you meet. They will in turn share it with others and return some cool modules back to you.

Customer: Thank you.

Tech Support: You're Most Welcome.


[Here Tech Support is none other than God and the Customer is none other than a Human Being]


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 


LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x