Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and Others

WPMB/1/2015

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. against the Union of India and other respondents, seeking judicial relief related to the excise duty exemption for industrial units in non-industrial areas under specific government notifications. The petitioner argued that its industrial unit, located in Ramnagar, Nainital, qualified for exemptions under Notifications No. 49/2003 and 50/2003, which were intended to promote industrial development in Uttarakhand. However, the court found that the petitioner's unit was not included in the notifications due to the omission of its khasra numbers, and previous judicial decisions had already addressed similar issues, leading to the application of res judicata.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694982 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Sidhbali Steels Ltd. vs. Secretary and Others, M/s Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of India & others, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & another, State of Haryana & others vs. M.P. Mohla, Mool Shanker Singh vs. Regional Manager, PNB & another, State of Bihar & others vs. Kalyanpur Cement Limited, State of Bihar & others vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. & others
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise Act, 1944, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH THAPLIYAL; H M BHATIA; VIPUL SHARMA; SHOBHIT SAHARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K RAIZADA; JITENDRA CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Central Excise duty exemption; Fiscal Incentives; Industrial units; Khasra Numbers; Notification No.50/2003; Substantial Expansion; Notification No. 49/2003
• Section: 5A; 3(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015 Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. ..………. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. ...………. Respondents Mr. R.K. Raizada, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India / respondent No. 1. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 5. & Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015 Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. ..………. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. ...………. Respondents Mr. R.K. Raizada, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India / respondent No. 1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Dated: 11th August, 2015 K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) These two writ petitions being connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015 was, originally, numbered as Writ Petition (MS) No. 1846 of 2011. The prayers sought in the said writ petition are as follows: “I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.7.2011 issued by respondent no. 1 annexed as Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition. 2 II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the Khasra No. 115- M, 24-Aa, 41-M, 42-M, 31, 39, 40, 45-M, 149-Da, 161-B, 25-B, 161-M total area 1.127 hectares of village Shivlalpur, Tehsil, Kashipur Ramnagar, District Nainital in the No. 50 dated 10.6.2003 issued for the units carrying on the industrial activities in non-industrial areas for availing all the fiscal benefits as have been notified in the Government Notification No. 1 (10)/2001-NER dated 7.1.2003 and Notification No. 49/2003 dated 10.6.2003 and Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.6.2003. III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the excise exemption to the petitioner in pursuance to the Notification No. 01 (10)/2001-NER dated 7.1.2003 read with the Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.6.2003.” 3. Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015 is also a writ petition filed by the very same petitioner and it was, originally, numbered as Writ Petition (MS) No. 307 of 2013. It was re-numbered as Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015, obviously, after the reference made to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. The prayers sought in the said writ petition are as follows: “I) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned circular dated 1.1.2013 issued by respondent no. 1 annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. II) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 24.1.2003 & 4.2.2013 issued by respondent no. 4 annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 & 5 to the writ petition. III) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents not to recover the amount in pursuance to the impugned notice of demand during the pendency of the appeal before respondent no. 2 as a consequence of enforcing the circular dated 1.1.2013.” 4. We treat Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015 as the leading case, as the decision on the said writ petition will suffice to decide the destiny of Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015. 5. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015 is as follows: 3 i. The petitioner is a small scale industry and it is manufacturing commercial ply, block board, flush door and decorative ply at village Shivlalpur, Kashipur Road, Ramnagar, District Nainital in the State of Uttarakhand. The factory of the petitioner is situated at Khasra Plot Nos. 115M, 24Aa, 41M, 42m, 31, 39, 40, 45M, 149Da, 161B, 25B, 161M, having total area of 1.127 hectares. It has secured a permanent registration as a small scale unit and it started production from 01.08.1986. It also has Central Excise Registration Certificate and Sales Tax Registration Certificate, besides No Objection from the Pollution Control Board. By communication dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure No. 3), Government of India declared various fiscal incentives. A further scheme was formulated regarding the grant of capital subsidy and it is known as the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2003 vide Notification dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure No. 4). Notification No. 49 / 2003 (Annexure No. 5) came to be issued on 10.06.2003 in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, purporting to exempt goods specified in the Schedule appended to the Notification and cleared from a unit in the State of Uttarakhand for a period of 10 years. Industrial units, which are already in existence and which had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in their installed capacity by not less than 25 per cent on or after the 7th day of January, 2003, were also entitled to the exemption. Petitioner wrote to the Central Excise Department vide letter dated 27.11.2003 for availing the benefit of exemption in the capacity as existing unit. The Excise Department wrote letter dated 26.06.2003 (Annexure No. 7) to the petitioner. It reads as follows: “CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE-II KASHIPUR C.No.20-CE/KPR-II/Exemption/03/207 Dated 26.06.2003 To, M/s Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., Ram Nagar, District Nainital. 4 Dear Sir, Subject:-Exemption provided to the Industries in the state of Uttaranchal As per Notification Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003 dt 10.06.03-Reg. The Govt. of India vide the aforesaid Notifications has granted exemption from the Central Excise duty to the Industries of Uttaranchal subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in the said Notification. In this regard, you are requested to intimate this office whether your Industry qualify or likely to qualify for availment of exemption or not. You should also inform your future expansion plans to avail the benefit under above Notification. If you propose to increase your installed capacity, you are requested to inform the tentative dates for completion of expansion plan and start of production after installed capacity is increased. You are requested to submit the above required information latest by 1st July, 2003 positively as the same has to be furnished to Division office. The said Notifications Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003 dt. 10.06.03 are available on the Website .Taxindiaonline.Com. Yours Sincerely, SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE-II, KASHIPUR” ii. According to the petitioner, in response to the earlier letter, by letter dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure No. 8), it expressed that it was planning to avail exemption. It is followed by letter dated 21.08.2003 (Annexure No. 9), which is written by Superintendent, Central Excise, to the petitioner. It reads as follows: “CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE-II, KASHIPUR C.No.20-CE/KPR-II/Exemption/03/401 Dated 21/8/03 To, M/s Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd. Shivlalpur, P.O. Ramnagar. D/Sir, SUBJECT: Exemption under Notification No. 49/2003 and 50/2003 both dated 10.06.2003 regarding exemption provided to the Industries in the State of Uttaranchal-C/reg. Please refer to your letter dated 18.07.2003 on the above subject vide which your have informed about your intention of availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 49/2003 and 50/2003 both dated 10.6.2003. 5 In this regard, you are hereby requested to inform about the installed capacity of your plant before the expansion of your unit. The said information may please be furnished to this within two days of receipt of this letter. YOURS SINCERELY SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-II KASHIPUR” iii. Thereafter, we find that the next document produced is Annexure No. 10 dated 09.12.2009. It reads as follows: “OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-II, KASHIPUR GUDIA COMPLEX, BAZPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR. C.No. 20-CE/KPR-II/Parvatiya/Exemp./09/1014 Dated: 09.12.09 To, M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No.3. Vill-Shivlalpur, P.O. Ramnagar, District-Nainital (Uttarakhand). Dear Sirs, Subject: Availment of exemption under notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003-C/Reg. Please refer to your declaration dated 01.12.2009 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division, Haldwani, a copy of which received in the Range Office on 03.12.2009, regarding exercise of option to avail of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under notification no. 49/2003-CE dated 10.03.2003. In this context, you are requested to submit the self attested copies of the following documents in duplicate for scrutiny of your case in respect of availment of exemption under notification no. 49/2003-CE dated 10.03.2003:- 1. Chartered Engineer Certificate of substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% as per requirement of the said notification. 2. Balance Sheet (in two sets) of the last five year i.e. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 indicating the licensed capacity and installed capacity of your unit prior to undertaking the said exemption. 3. Bills/Vouchers in respect of material / machineries, purchased and exclusively used in the substantial expansion work undertaken by you for availment of exemption together with copy of contract and details and mode of payment made to the contractors, if any in regard to the said purpose. 6 4. Chartered Accountant Certificate verifying the expenditure / investment made in connection with the work of substantial expansion undertaken by you in reference to the said purpose documents in relation of investment. 5. Details of Plant & Machinery purchased with copies of relevant invoices/bills/challan of Plant & Machinery purchased, registry papers and Khasra Khatauni in which the unit is situated. 6. Registration papers issued by the Department of Industries. 7. Date of commencement / completion of expansion and date of commencement of commercial production. 8. Sketch plan of the unit. 9. Details of Khasra Khatauni on which the unit exists duly signed by the Tehsildar. 10. Details of Plant & Machinery before expansion and after expansion (copy of fixed asset register). The above information in a folder / file may be furnished in two sets to the undersigned. Yours sincerely SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-II KASHIPUR.” iv. Annexure No. 11 is letter dated 27.01.2010 and it is addressed by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. We deem it necessary to extract the same as follows: “Date 27.01.10 To, Place Ramnagar The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Div. Haldwani Distt. Nainital (Uttaranchal) Sub: Re: Letter dated 30.12.2009 Ref No: C.No. V(30) Exemp/309/PPPL/2009 – Availment of exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. dated 10.06.2003. Sir, We are in receipt of your letter dated 30.12.2009 asking us to clarify the reasons for availing the exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. dated 10.06.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Notification”). In this regard, we wish to clarify as under:- 1. We are proposing to avail the exemption provided under the Notification 49/2003-C.E. The exemption provided in this Notification is for the new unit set up or got substantial expansion in the State of Uttarakhand, which manufacture 7 the goods specified in the Schedule annexed in this Notification. 2. We wish to bring to your notice that both, the Notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and Notification No. 50/2003–C.E. dated 10.06.2003 have been issued so as to promote industrial development in the State of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh under the Industrial Policy 2003. The Industrial Policy seeks to promote forest based industries and particularly states that there is excellent potential for the development of forest resources based industries in the state. The policy further state that it seeks to encourage non-timber based industries and includes plywood/flush boards. The raw material used by us is poplar wood, eucalyptus and other soft woods for the manufacture of plywood/flush boards. Thus, the products manufactured by us are non-timber based forest products as stated in the policy and eligible for exemption. Copy of the Industrial Policy is enclosed as Annexure-1. 3. The Central Government has also issued Notification No. 50/2003 – C.E. dated 10.06.2003 giving exemption to goods manufactured (other than the goods specified in Annexure – 1 of the said notification) and cleared from units set up in the areas notified in the said Notification. In this regard, we bring to your notice that our Khasra Number was left to be included in this notification and to rectify this mistake SIDCUL has already given its recommendation for inclusion our Khasra Number in this Notification. However, we have also already filed a writ petition in the High court of Nainital for incorporating our Khasra No. in the schedule to Notification No. 50/2003 –C.E. dated 10.06.2003. 4. We have filed letter dated 02.12.2009 reference no. 507/0910 stating that we have increased the installed capacity of our manufacturing unit substantially and have started commercial production from such expanded capacity on 03.12.2009. Pursuant to above expansion in the installed capacity, we intimated to your good self vide the aforesaid letter that we will be claiming exemption under the Notification 49/2003 as we are totally covered by the Industrial Policy of the State and the products manufactured by us are non-timber based forest products as stated in the policy and eligible for exemption. The exemption under this Notification is also being claimed as we are entitled to get exemption under both the Notification. Though our Khasra number is not included in the Notification No. 50/2003 – C.E. dated 10.06.2003 and matter is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Nainital for inclusion of our Khasra number under notification No. 50/2003 and we reserve the right to claim exemption under the Notification No. 50/2003 – C.E. dated 10.06.2003 also in the event our khasra number is notified in the schedule to the said Notification vide order of Hon’ble Court. In both the 8 situations, no excise duty would be payable by us on the finished goods manufactured by us. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view that the Notification No. 49/2003 is also enacted to give effect to the intention of the industrial policy, the goods manufactured by us are covered under Se. No. 18 of the Notification and hence we are eligible to claim exemption under the Notification No. 49/2003 also irrespective of my right to claim the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. Therefore, the present application has been filed for claiming exemption under Notification No. 49/2003. Thanking you, Yours Faithfully Dated 27.01.10 For Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Place : Ramnagar (Managing Director) Enclosed: Copy of State Industrial Policy of Uttaranchal 2003 Copy To: - The Superintendent Central Excise, Range-II, Kashipur.” v. Petitioner has also produced letter dated 29.01.2010 written by the petitioner to the Superintendent, Central Excise, purporting to produce various documents, including the Charted Engineer Certificate, Balance Sheets from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, Chartered Accountant Certificate, Bill of Plant and Machinery, Registry Papers, Khasra Khatauni Papers and details of Plant and Machinery before expansion and after expansion, inter alia. Annexure No. 13 purports to be a letter dated 22.02.2010 written by the Superintendent, Central Excise, to the petitioner, wherein it was requested to furnish the details of all plant and machinery installed by the petitioner during the course of expansion of the unit. Petitioner wrote a letter dated 08.03.2010 purporting to produce certain details relating to machines. vi. It appears that Government of India brought out a Notification amending Notification No. 50/2003 on 19.05.2005 including certain more khasra numbers; but the petitioner’s unit / khasra numbers were not included. On 26.05.2005, petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier, which was registered as Writ Petition (MB) No. 542 of 2005 (later on re- numbered as WPMS No. 162 of 2009). Therein, petitioner had purported 9 to seek virtually similar prayer, as is sought as prayer No. 2 in this writ petition. It appears that the said writ petition was, originally, disposed of on the basis of the report of the Committee that was constituted by this Court. The same was challenged by the Department before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2007. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the said appeal in terms of its judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 2007 (Shri Sidhbali Steels Ltd. vs. Secretary and Others). In Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 2007, in short, the Hon’ble Apex Court had remitted the matter back for consideration afresh. vii. Thereafter, the complaint of the petitioner is that, though the case of the petitioner was not covered by the facts of the judgment in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005 (M/s Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of India & others), produced as Annexure No. 20, which was filed by another unit; the case of the petitioner (WPMS No. 162 of 2009) was disposed of on the basis that the directions therein would govern the fate of the petitioner. The following is the judgment dated 21.12.2010 rendered by this Court in the earlier writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (MS) No. 162 of 2009: “The facts of this case are almost identical to those dealt with by us in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005, except that the industry is not situated in an industrial estate, but is situated in a non-industrial but notified area. However, the similarity of the facts is non-mentioning of name of the units and Khasra Numbers in Annexure-II to the Notification. Accordingly, fate of the present writ petitioner would be similar to that of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. We accordingly dispose of this writ petition in the light of our judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be informed of the outcome of the representation made by it within six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter.” viii. It is necessary to refer to the judgment dated 21.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, which is referred to in the said 10 judgment and on the basis of which the said writ petition was disposed of. It reads as follows: “Review Application No. 81 of 2006 On 20th April 2006, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 was finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of submission, said to have been made by Assistant Solicitor General, to the effect that a part of Schedule - III ought to have been notified in Schedule - II and the said correction would be made at the earliest. In the review application, it has been stated that the Assistant Solicitor General was not authorized to make any such submission. On the records of this Court, there is nothing to suggest that the Assistant Solicitor General was authorized to make such submission before this Court. In the circumstances, we allow the Review Petition No. 81 of 2006 filed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005 and, accordingly, recall the order dated 20th April, 2006 passed on Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005 shall be heard afresh. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005 An industrial unit manufacturing iron ingots was set up by the petitioner within the industrial estate situated in Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand. On 7th January 2003, Central Government announced a policy and thereby proposed, amongst others, to grant 100% outright excise duty exemption for a period of 10 years to industrial units mentioned in the said policy from the date of commencement of commercial production. The industrial units, who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, were new industrial units and existing industrial units on their substantial expansion set up in, amongst others, industrial estates, as stated in Annexure – I to the said policy. In Annexure – I, Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal, State of Uttarakhand was identified as one of the places where a new industrial unit or an existing industrial unit has been set up in an industrial estate. Apparently, therefore, petitioner would be a beneficiary of the said policy. New industrial units and existing industrial units, on their substantial expansion, referred to in the said policy, were purported to be defined and, accordingly, the words, “as defined” were mentioned in the policy, but no such definition was given, instead, particulars of the ineligible industries had been furnished. When the words “substantial expansion” was used, no attempt was made to define the same in the policy. The policy directed, amongst others, the Revenue Department to amend Acts / Rules / Notifications, etc. and to issue necessary instructions for giving effect to the decision contained in the policy. The question, therefore, is whether an existing industrial unit, situated in an industrial estate located in Annexure – I to the policy, could ask for the benefits under the said policy. In order to ask for the benefits under the policy, the unit concerned was required to show 11 that it has made substantial expansion. Since what would be substantial expansion had not been indicated in the policy, there would always be dispute whether the unit concerned has discharged its obligations under the policy in order to take advantage or benefits thereunder. In substance, therefore, the conclusion would be that the policy dated 7th January 2003, in so far as existing industrial units are concerned, was not conclusive. The same would become conclusive and, accordingly, would become enforceable, only when further steps have been taken by amending Acts / Rules / Notifications, etc. or by issuing necessary instructions for giving effect to the decision contained in the policy. 2. The policy was given effect to and was made conclusive on 10th June 2003, when an exemption notification was made and published. In that, it was indicated that an existing industrial unit must expand to not less than 25% of its existing installed capacity after 7th January 2003 in order to take advantage of the policy. The notification dated 10th June 2003, thus published, made the policy dated 7th January 2003 wholesome and, accordingly, an existing industrial unit on expansion of its installed capacity by not less than 25% after 7th January, 2003 became entitled to the benefits of the said policy. However, in the notification dated 10th June 2003, in addition to mentioning the location of the industrial estates at Tehsil Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, two additional particulars were furnished, namely, that of the name of industrial estate of Jashodharpur and Khasra numbers of the said industrial estate. According to the petitioner, though the industrial unit of the petitioner is located in the industrial estate of Jashodharpur but the same is not situated on the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated 10th June 2003. The industrial unit of the petitioner is situated on Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 of Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, but the same is situated within the industrial estate of Jashodharpur. Petitioner contends that Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 were inadvertently omitted in the notification dated 10th June 2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that District Industrial Centre of the District was also of the same view and, accordingly, on 21st July 2003 made a request to the Industries Department of the State to incorporate the said Khasra numbers in the said notification dated 10th June 2003. It appears that the same was not done and, accordingly, petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition, alongwith similar other writ petitions, were disposed of by an order dated 3rd March 2005, when the petitioner was asked to make a fresh representation with a fresh recommendation of the State Government or SIDCUL with a direction upon the Central Government to decide the said representation. It appears to be the contention of the petitioner that it did make a representation armed with a recommendation of the State Government and thereafter on 6th June 2005, it was informed by the State Government that its grievances have been redressed by 12 a notification published on 19th May 2005. It is the contention of the petitioner that while looking at the notification dated 19th May 2005, it transpired that thereby notification dated 10th June 2003 was amended. While, however, amending the said notification dated 10th June 2003, Annexure – II to the notification dated 10th June 2003 was retained, showing industrial estates situated at Khasra numbers, Tehsils, districts and the State, in which if an industry is in existence, on substantial expansion thereof, or a new industry will be entitled to the benefit of the said policy, but at the same time a new annexure, being Annexure – III, was added to the Notification dated 10th June, 2003 giving similar such particulars of the industrial estates, where only on setting up of new industries, benefit of the policy would be available. It was contended that in Annexure – III, the Khasra numbers, pertaining to the industry of the petitioner situated in Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal, State of Uttarakhand, was mentioned. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that a mandamus should, in the circumstances, be issued to rectify the original mistake, as was committed in Annexure – II to the notification dated 10th June 2003 or to issue a direction for issuance of an appropriate notification permitting exemption of excise duty, in so far as the industrial unit of the petitioner is concerned and situated at Jashodharpur industrial estate, Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61, Tehsil: Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the event a promise is made and the same is accepted by acting on the basis of the promise to the detriment of the person so acting, it is now settled that the promiser can be compelled to discharge his obligations under the promise. The question is, whether the promise made in the policy dated 7th January 2003 could be acted by the petitioner to its detriment? The policy dated 7th January 2003 did hold out that benefits thereunder will be also available to the petitioner, in as much as it was held out in the said policy that an existing industrial unit set up in an industrial estate, situated at Kotdwar, District: Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, will be entitled to the benefits of the said policy, provided it carries out substantial expansion. However, the 7th January 2003 policy, having not given particulars of the expansion of the existing industrial units to be effected, for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the said policy, it does not appear to us that the petitioner could act to its detriment for the purpose of taking advantage of the said policy dated 7th January 2003. As aforesaid, the policy became wholesome only when the notification dated 10th June 2003 was made and published, and thereby the petitioner was made to know that in order to act to its detriment for the purpose of obtaining advantage under the policy, the petitioner is required to effect not less than 25% expansion of its installed capacity in its existing industrial unit. However, when the policy was thus made wholesome by publication of the notification dated 10th June 2003, an existing industrial unit established in an industrial estate in the Tehsil of Kotdwar, District: 13 Pauri Garhwal in the State of Uttarakhand, would not do. It would require to be an existing industrial unit situated in Jashodharpur industrial estate on those Khasra numbers, in the Tehsil of Kotdwar, in the district of Pauri Garhwal and in the State of Uttarakhand. The existing industrial unit of the petitioner being not there, the petitioner, we do not think, could act to its detriment for the purpose of taking advantage of the policy in question. 4. Assuming, as has been canvassed before us, that the State of Uttarakhand at the time of furnishing particulars to denote the subject industrial estates, by mistake omitted to include Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 and later on realizing the said mistake, wanted to incorporate the same in the notification dated 10th June 2003, but the fact remains that the request of the State Government has not been acceded to by the Central Government and, accordingly, the same has not been incorporated in Annexure – II to the notification dated 10th June 2003. It is not the contention of the Central Government that it made a mistake. As would be evident from the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March 2005, the Central Government, though may have had conceded that there had been mistake on the part of the State Government, but, nevertheless, it never contended that there was any mistake on its part in the matter of making the notification dated 10th June 2003. Therefore, even if on the basis of mistake committed by the State Government the notification dated 10th June 2003 had been made by the Central Government, the question is, can the writ Court rectify the said mistake and, if the writ Court rectifies the same, what would be the effect thereof? If a mandamus is issued to incorporate those two Khasra numbers in the notification dated 10th June 2003, the same would tantamount to expansion of the policy, which the writ Court cannot do. The effect of such direction would be doing something which the Court is not competent to do. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that, although it appears to us that Khasra Nos. 60 (d) and 61 were not incorporated in Annexure – II to the notification dated 10th June 2003 for the blunder on the part of the State in furnishing appropriate information to the Union of India, but we are incompetent to incorporate the same in the said notification, particularly, in view of the fact that when the said mistake was pointed out, the Central Government agreed to give advantage to new industrial units situated on the said Khasra numbers by incorporating Annexure – III to the notification dated 10th June 2003 by the amendment effected on 19th May 2005 and, accordingly, the same should be deemed to be a conscious decision of the Central Government and, in as much as the same pertains to a policy decision, the scope of intervention by the judiciary in that regard is absolutely limited. Apart from contending that the action complained of is discriminatory in nature, nothing else has been highlighted in the petition, on the basis whereof the said action can be called in question. In so far as discrimination is concerned, the policy granted benefit to industries situated at one place, but refused to give benefit to industries situated at other places. The 14 policy itself discriminated one industry from another only on the basis of their location. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination, as such, there is no scope of interference in the matter. 5. We, accordingly, close the matter, but, however, before doing so, having noted the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March 2005, which has reached finality, we are of the view that the petitioner was entitled to know from the Central Government of the result of the consideration by the Central Government of the representation of the petitioner made pursuant to the said order of this Court and the same, having not yet been received, we ask the Central Government to make the same available to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that, although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter.” ix. Thereafter, it appears that, vide order dated 5th July, 2011 (Annexure No. 23), which is impugned as prayer No. 1, petitioner was communicated the reasons as to why the petitioner was not given the benefit of the notification. It reads as follows: “F. No. 336/08/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax Research Unit Room No. 146-1, North Block New Delhi dated 5th July, 2011 To M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 3, Vill. Shivlalpur, PO Ramnagar, Nainital Uttarakhand. Sir, Subject: Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 by M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GOI & Others – regarding. Please refer to order of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttaranchal dated 21.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 and your request for inclusion of Khasra numbers 115Mi, 25A, 41Mi, 42Mi, 38, 39, 40, 45Mi, 149D, 161B, 25B and 161Mi at Village Shivlalpur Pandey, Kashipur Road, Tehsil Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal in the notification No. 50/2003 (CE) dated 10.06.2003. 15 2. Exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.6.2003 was issued based on the information provided by DIPP. Subsequently the matter was examined again and amendments to the said notification were effected by notification No. 27/2005-CE on 19.5.2005 based on the list submitted by Government of Uttarakhand at the time of issue of said notification No. 27/2005- CE on 19.5.2005. While forwarding the list it was also confirmed by the State Government that the changes in respect of these estates are final and no recommendation for any further changes will be made. 3. From the relevant records, it is seen that Khasra numbers 115Mi, 25A, 41Mi, 42Mi, 38, 39, 40, 45Mi, 149D, 161B, 25B and 161Mi at Village Shivlalpur Pandey, Kashipur Road, Tehsil Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal of M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. were not recommended by State Government in the list submitted prior to issue of notification No. 27/2005-CE on 19.5.2005. Hence the same was not included in the notification No. 27/2005-CE on 19.5.2005. 4. This issues with the approval of Revenue Secretary, Government of India. Yours sincerely, (Vivek Johri) Joint Secretary (TRU) Copy for information to: The Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I.” x. It is, accordingly, that the petitioner is before us. 6. Pleadings have been exchanged. 7. We have heard Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of respondent No. 1 / Union of India; Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department / respondent No. 5; Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. 8. This case was, originally, listed before the learned Single Judge as per the roster. The learned Single Judge passed the following order dated 24.03.2015, referring the matter to the Division Bench: 16 “Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Union of India/respondent no. 1. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent no. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the respondent no. 5. Though the arguments of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner have been heard by this Court at great extent nay the submissions have been made on behalf of few of the respondents, but meanwhile an application has been moved by respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 with the prayer that the matter should be referred to the Division Bench of this Court for deciding the question of law as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of their application. This application has been resisted by learned Sr. Counsel of the petitioner. I feel that not only the question of law, as has been formulated in paragraph no. 2 of this application dated 11.3.2015, but the entire controversy depicted in the matter is so intricate in itself that in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication, better the matter should be adjudicated by the Division Bench and, for that, Hon’ble Chief Justice is requested to constitute a Division Bench. Liberty is also extended to both the parties for making request to Hon’ble The Chief Justice to constitute the Bench at the earliest.” 9. Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in referring the matter to the Division Bench. He would submit that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to refer the case to the Division Bench. The matter is governed by the High Court Rules. Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which governs the proceedings in this Court also, deals with the jurisdiction of Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench. Rule 2 therein provides for jurisdiction of the Single Judge. Therein, clause ix(b) provides as follows: “(b) a Judge may, if he thinks fit, refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone or (we take it to be ‘on’) any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench.” 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on the basis of the said Rule, the learned Single Judge was not justified, in the facts of this case, in referring the matter to the Division Bench. He would submit that it is not the law that a Single Judge can, without any 17 reason, avoid hearing the case and extricate himself from the duty to hear the case by referring the case to a Division Bench. In this context, he drew our attention to a Special Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Babu Premarajan vs. Superintendent of Police, Kasaragode and others, reported in AIR 2000 Kerala 417. The judgment is rendered by a Bench of seven Judges. The question was raised under the Kerala High Court Act, 1959. The question, which fell for consideration before the Bench, arose in the context of certain orders by which matters were referred to the Division Bench. In one of the cases, it was merely stated “adjourned under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act for being heard by a Bench”. In another case, it was stated “in view of the important question involved in these writ petitions, they are adjourned”. In another case, it was noted that “it would be just and proper that the petition be heard by a bench”. Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act provided for the powers of a Single Judge. Section 3 empowered the Single Judge to adjourn a case so that it may be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges. In the majority judgment, the court has summed- up its conclusions. The court took the view that an order of referring the case to the Division Bench is a judicial order and, though it is a discretionary order, there should be reasons. It is apposite to refer to para 20 of the said judgment as under: “20. In view of the above, it is contended before us that if an adjournment is a judicial order, it must contain reasons. There are some orders of reference where the only order is “adjourned to a Division Bench”. There may be cases where there is a conflict of two or more decisions of single Judges of this Court with no decision of the Division Bench or of the Apex Court in the field. This would certainly justify a reference by a single Judge to a Division Bench. Secondly, there may be an important question of law of general or public importance affecting a large number of cases, as was the case referred to a Division Bench of this Court regarding the grant of Plus-Two-courses, (11th and 12th Standard), for the academic year 2000-2001. There were nearly 200 petitions involving a large number of students, parents, teachers, managements and the issue had threatened to become a law and order problem in the State. Thirdly, there may be a case where a new Legislation has been enacted and there is no parallel to it anywhere else in the country and the challenge raises questions of law which did not arise for determination before the Apex Court or 18 this Court. In this category may fall the OMBUDSMAN’s case pursuant to the insertion of Section 271-G in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by recent amendment. Fourthly, if a question of law is being considered by a Division Bench, a case involving the same or similar question of law may be referred to the Division Bench for being heard along with the earlier matter. In this background let us consider some of the decisions which have a bearing on the issue.” 11. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even if there is a question of law, it does not mean that it would warrant reference of the case to a Division Bench. He would further complain that, when a learned Single Judge, without any basis in law, makes a reference as a routine matter, it has always serious implications for the party, insofar as, it deprives the aggrieved party of a right of appeal. That is to say, if the matter was heard by the Single Judge instead of referring it, the right of intra-court appeal would be available to the affected party. 12. In this case, we notice that, in fact, the reference was made on the basis of a written application moved by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would, in fact, point out that the matter was heard considerably and there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to refer the matter. 13. It is true that, in Rule 2(ix)(b) contained in Chapter V of the High Court Rules, applicable to this Court also, the only constraint is imposed by the words “if he thinks fit”. The words “if he thinks fit” cannot, however, mean that it will be open to the learned Single Judge to refer the matter without there being some substantial reasons. Drawing support from what the Kerala High Court has held in para 20 as extracted above, we would also take the view that, unless there is a question of law of public importance or a new legislation is being challenged and the Single Judge feels that the matter is of such importance that it should be dealt with authoritatively by a Bench or there is some other weighty reasons, a reference would be unjustified. It would not be appropriate to catalogue an exhaustive list of situations. It may not be proper for a Single Judge to mechanically pass order, whether it is at the request of the parties or even 19 suo motu, to refer the matter. A Single Judge is expected to deal with questions of fact and questions of law. If he deals with questions of fact and law and if he renders a judgment thereon, in cases provided by Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, an intra-court appeal may be maintainable. This is also a very precious right vouchsafed for the litigant. This aspect must also be borne in mind when the court decides to refer a matter to a Division Bench. 14. In this case, however, we notice that the learned Single Judge has found that there is a question of law and it was found to be “so intricate in itself” and, for its proper adjudication, he felt it necessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench. In fact, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the Excise Department, would submit that any decision on this will have far-reaching repercussions in regard to the implication of the notification. Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, we reject the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of reference was uncalled for and, therefore, it should be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to be dealt with by him. 15. Therefore, we pass on to the consideration of the case on merits. 16. The first thing to be noticed is the policy decisions taken by the Central Government. Annexure No. 3 is a decision taken on 07.01.2003 by the Central Government. It purported to provide that the Government was pleased to announce tax and central excise concessions to attract investments in the industrial sector for the special category States, including Uttaranchal. Under the heading “fiscal incentives to new industrial units and to existing units on their substantial expansion”, it is provided as follows: “3.1 Fiscal Incentives to new Industrial Units and to existing units on their substantial expansion: (I) New industrial units and existing industrial units on their substantial expansion as defined, set up in Growth Centres, Industrial Infrastructure Development Centres (IIDCs), Industrial Estates, Export Processing Zones, Theme Parks 20 (Food Processing Parks, Software Technology Parks, etc.) as stated in Annexure-1 and other areas as notified from time to time by the Central Government, are entitled to: (a) 100% (hundred percent) outright excise duty exemption for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. (b) 100% income tax exemption for initial period of five years and thereafter 30% for companies and 25% for other than companies for a further period of five years for the entire states of Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh from the date of commencement of commercial production. (II) All New industries in the notified location would be eligible for capital investment subsidy @ 15% of their investment in plant and machinery, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 30 lakh. The existing units will also be entitled to this subsidy on their substantial expansion, as defined. (III) Thrust Sector Industries as mentioned in Annexure-II are entitled to similar concessions as mentioned in para 3(I) & (II) above in the entire state of Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh without any area restrictions.” 17. Clause 3.5 provides that the Nodal Agency for routing the subsidies / incentives under various schemes under this policy will be notified separately. In clause 4, the Government reserved the right to modify any part of the policy in the interest of public. Thereafter, it is necessary to notice that, under Annexure-I, it deals with locations identified in the following Tehsil of the State of Uttaranchal for excise exemption under the new industrial policy for the State of Uttaranchal and the State of Himachal Pradesh. Under the State of Uttaranchal, in the second column against the district Nainital, we find that Ram Nagar is also mentioned. 18. Then, the next Notification is dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure No. 4). That purports to provide for central subsidy for industrial units. In that, there is reference to effective steps, substantial expansion and fixed capital investment. Apparently, it relates to admissible subsidy. 19. This was followed by the actual Notifications, two in number. Notification No. 49/2003 is dated 10.06.2003. It provides for exemption available to certain products. Then, on the same day, another Notification No. 50/2003 was issued, i.e. on 10.06.2003. It is necessary to refer to the Preamble and also clause 2 contained therein. They read as follows: 21 “G.S.R. (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1985), other than the goods specified in Annexure-1 appended hereto, and cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Infrastructure Development Centre or Export Promotion Industrial Park or Industrial Estate or Industrial Area or Commercial Estate or Scheme Area, as the case may be, specified in Annexure-II appended hereto, from the whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the said Acts. 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kinds of units, namely:- (a) new industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 7th day of January, 2003; (b) industrial units existing before the 7th day of January, 2003, but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent, on or after the 7th day of January, 2003.” 20. A time-limit of 10 years was also provided. We are concerned with this Notification primarily. This Notification is, essentially, an area-based exemption notification. That is to say, goods, which are cleared from the units, which are located in specified locations, alone, are provided with the exemption. In regard to District Nainital, Ram Nagar, where the petitioner’s unit, admittedly, is located, comes under “industrial activity in non-industrial area (with their expansion)”. We may only notice the respective columns under the caption “industrial activity in non-industrial area”. Under the same, it is to be noted that Serial Nos. 6, 7 & 8 have been referred to us by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to point out that they all fall in Ram Nagar. Reference is made to Northern Plywood, Arora Plywood and New India Match Co. and General Timber Product. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s unit also is a plywood unit; it is located in Ram Nagar; and it is located quite close to these units; but, what is conspicuous by its absence is its inclusion in 22 khasra numbers and the unit of the petitioner in the said Notification under the heading “industrial activity in non-industrial area (with their expansion)”. It is pointed out that Serial Nos. 13 to 34, under the second column, which relates to the actual units, it is left blank and they are barren lands; but they are, of course, located in Haldwani, which is a part of District Nainital. 21. The contentions, which have been addressed before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, are, essentially, that there was no rationale for not including the khasra numbers of the petitioner in the Notification and depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the Notification. Petitioner was an existing unit since 1986. With reference to the communications, which we have already adverted to, it is submitted that the petitioner had carried out the expansion within the meaning of the Notification so as to earn the right to get the benefit of the tax concession. It is submitted that, by communication dated 29.06.2004 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand, the Government of Uttarakhand had made a recommendation for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the petitioner to the Central Government. The said communication reads as follows: “Sanjeev Chopra Industrial Development Secretary Government of Uttaranchal D.O. NO. 707/PS/2003 Tele: [phone] (O) Fax : [phone] Dated: 29.06.2004 Sub:- Excise Notification No. 49 & 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 for Government of Uttaranchal Dear Sir, This is with reference to the meeting our Sh. Parag Gupta, M.D. State Industrial Development Corporation had with you on the above mentioned subject. After publication of the above notification of the Khasra numbers the individual industries/persons have started making request that the Khasra numbers of their existing industries or Khasra numbers of their expansion plans have been left out from the notification. Their request has been forwarded by local District Industries Centers and District Magistrate also, for inclusion of 23 these Khasra numbers/correction in the revised notification. Please find enclosed herewith details of Khasra Numbers alongwith the reasons, and supporting documents wherever required under following Categories:- A. Existing Industrial Estate B. Expansion of Existing Industrial Estate C. Existing Industrial Activity in non industrial area which could not be sent earlier D. Proposed Industrial Estate where presently no industry exists E. Industrial Area proposed to be set up in Joint Sector among State Industrial Development Corporation and Private Promoter. In light of the above, you are requested to kindly issue the notification for the enclosed list of Khasra numbers. Thanking you. Encl: As above Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) Shri S. Jagadeesan, I.A.S. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry & Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011” 22. Thereafter, the matter was again reiterated by communication dated 20.09.2004 (Annexure No. 24). It reads as follows: “To, Shri S. Jagadeesan, IAS Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Sub.: Correction / Amendment in the excise notification No. 50 dated 10.06.04 issued by Govt. of India for the State of Uttaranchal. Dear Sir, You are aware that certain khasra numbers were left in the aforesaid notification either in existing Industrial Estates or Industrial activities in non-Industrial Estates. When the said corrections were sent to GOI vide letter No. 707 dated 29.06.04 for notification of amended list of khasra numbers, it was advised by DIPP, Govt. of India, to check up thoroughly the corrections, at the level of GOU and furnish a consolidated list of such corrections. In 24 compliance to the instructions of GOI, the corrections required to be done have been re-checked and complied in the following two categories: i) Existing Industrial Estates / Areas. ii) Industrial activities in non-industrial areas. 2. Further, some private Industrial Estates in joint sector with SIDCUL are also being developed by the entrepreneurs, some of which have already been notified, whereas some are in the process of notification. Khasra numbers of such private Industrial Estates are being annexed as category ‘E’ for their notification. 3. The above corrections / additions have been signed by the competent officer of the State. 4. You are requested to issue the Notification for the enclosed list of khasra numbers with necessary corrections as indicated therein. Thanking you, Yours faithfully (Sanjeev Chopra) Secretary (ID).” 23. In the document attached to the said communication, it is pointed out that the petitioner’s name figures along with the khasra numbers. In other words, the case is that the Government of Uttarakhand had indeed recommended the case of the petitioner for its inclusion in the Notification conferring benefits. At once, it is argued, therefore, that this will knock out the very basis of order dated 05.07.2011 (Annexure No. 23) issued by the Government of India rejecting the representation of the petitioner. In other words, it is submitted that the Government of India had erroneously stated that there was no recommendation by the Government, when there was a recommendation by the Government. 24. It is, further, pointed out that this is a case, where, as things turn out, a meeting was held under the auspices of the Secretary to the Prime Minister in February, 2005, as per which, it had taken certain decisions. These decisions were not brought to the notice of the Court, when it decided the earlier writ petition. In other words, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was reduced to a fait accompli after having suppressed these documents from the Court, as the list was already prepared and, therefore, there was fraud and misrepresentation, as a result of which, alone, this Court was persuaded to pass the order, which it passed, which we have already referred to. The learned Senior Counsel 25 for the petitioner would rely on the following decisions in regard to the contention that fraud would deprive the earlier judgment of its validity and force: i. A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. & others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221. ii. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre vs. Principal, VAV College of Arts & others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 108. iii. M/s Katwe Jaggery Traders, Hubli and etc. etc. vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 1991 Karnataka 63. 25. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the earlier writ petition was also seeking prayer No. 2, as is sought in this writ petition; having regard to the disposal of the representation by rejecting the same, it furnished fresh cause of action and, therefore, the Court cannot be deterred from granting relief to the petitioner. It is petitioner’s case that there was an interim order directing his representation to be considered. The learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & another, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179. ii. State of Haryana & others vs. M.P. Mohla, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 457. iii. Mool Shanker Singh vs. Regional Manager, PNB & another, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 754. 26. The last one was for the proposition that, if a representation is directed to be disposed of, there would be no bar in the court considering challenge to the decision rendered on the representation. It is submitted that this is a case, where the Central Government had enunciated a policy. Under the policy, certain benefits would accrue to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, for which, apparently, store is laid by the conduct of 26 the Department (Excise) in engaging in communications, which we have already adverted to. 27. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India, would submit before us that things are not as the petitioner has put it. It may be true that recommendations were made by the Secretary, Industrial Department, dated 29.06.2004 and 20.09.2004, recommending the inclusion of the petitioner’s khasra numbers. But, thereafter, there was a high-level meeting, which went into the issue. There were number of requests for inclusion. The matter had to be streamlined. There is a case for Mr. Shobhit Saharia that the effect of granting an exemption is that it deprives the Government of its revenue to the extent of the concession granted. It is pointed out that, in the said meeting, certain decisions were taken. We may refer to the same, which were made available to this Court as ordered by this Court. The following is produced as the summary record of the meeting on Concessional Industrial Package to the State of Uttaranchal held in the office of Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister: “Subject: Summary record of the meeting on Concessional Industrial Package to the State of Uttaranchal held in the office of Principal Secretary to P.M., PMO, South Block, on 4.2.2005 at 2.30 p.m. The list of participants are as under :- 1. Shri R.S. Tolia, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttranchal 2. Smt. Vinita Kumar, Resident Commissioner, Govt. of Uttaranchal 3. Shri Sanjeev Chopra, Secretary (Industrial Development), Govt. of Uttaranchal 4. Shri Alok Kumar, MD, SIDCUL, 5. Shri A.K. Singh, Chairman, CBEC, Ministry of Finance, 6. Shri Gautam Ray, JS (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, 7. Shri Sanjay Mitra, JS to PM The Principal Secretary to PM pointed out that the implementation of the Concessional Industrial Package for the State of Uttaranchal has run into serious procedural problems, due to inordinate delays in the issue of notifications by the Finance 27 Ministry regarding amendments/modifications/additions/deletions of ‘Khasra’ numbers recommended by the State Government in their notified Industrial Estates/Areas. The need for implifying the procedures relating to notifying Industrial Estates/Areas by the Ministry for the purpose of Excise and Income Tax exemptions and Capital Investment subsidies was emphasized. Principal Secretary to PM was of the view that if the total area in the notified industrial estate/capital industrial area does not change, then the Khasra numbers should not be insisted upon by the Ministry of Finance and the State Governments should be given the freedom to alter the notified area accordingly. After detailed examination of the issues involved, the following line of action was agreed upon: 1. Modifications, if any, will be restricted to industrial estates/areas/existing industrial estates/industrial activity in a non-industrial area as notified by the Government of India in its notification No. 50 dated July 6, 2003. 2. That any substitution/modification/alteration in any notified area/estate etc. will not result in any net increase of that particular Area/Estate. 3. That this is being done primarily to facilitate the proper planning of Industrial Estates/Areas. 4. Thus the State Government will ensure that no area which has been de-notified has been allocated to any industry which may later claim benefits under the concessional industrial package. 5. For the newly notified area, the exemption will apply for new units and not for existing units. 6. The State Government will ensure that the Khasra numbers relating to the list of Industrial Estates/Areas where modification is proposed are sent to the Ministry of Finance on or before 15.02.2005.” 28. Thereafter, it appears that, on the basis of the same, communication dated 15.02.2005 was issued enclosing a list of khasra numbers, which were to be notified afresh. It reads as follows: “Alok Kumar Industrial Development Additional Secretary Govt. of Uttaranchal Dehradun No. 47/PS/2005 Date: 15th February, 2005 Kindly refer to Prime Minister’s Office letter PMO U.O. No. 670/77/c/5/2005 ES I dated 10.02.2005. Further to our discussions, please find enclosed the list of Khasra nos., which need to be notified afresh. The list is being submitted in two parts. 28 (i) This is a list comprising of Khasra nos. of proposed industrial estates/areas/regions. (ii) This consists of list which require minor corrections of Khasra Nos. which were erroneously notified due to typographical errors. It is certified that the proposed amendment to the notification will not result in a net increase in the area under notification. It is further certified that the area proposed for denotification has been examined and no industry is being setup in those areas, whose interests are likely to be adversely affected. As desired, I am also enclosing the soft copy of the amendments proposed in order to expedite the issuance of amended notification by Govt. of India. Thanking you Yours sincerely Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Additional Secretary Encl: 1- Proposed industrial Estates/ Area Page 1 – 4 2- Corrections in the Notified Khasra Nos. Page 1 – 4 3- Floppy including File: List 1 and List 2.doc To, Shri Gautam Ray Joint Secretary Department of Revenue Govt. of India, New Delhi. CC Mrs. Renuka Kumar, Director, PMO Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Additional Secretary Not in Original CC: 1- Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttaranchal 2- Add. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttaranchal 3- Secretary, Industries, Govt. of Uttaranchal. Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Additional Secretary” 29. It is submitted that, in the said list, the khasra numbers of the petitioner did not figure. 29 30. Therefore, he would submit that it is on the basis of the same that the Court should view the legality of order dated 05.07.2011 (Annexure No. 23). That is to say, in the final round, the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the State Government. This is for the reason that it did not fall within the scope of the decision taken, namely, while individual khasra numbers, which were left out and which deserved to be included, could be included, provided that the net area could not be increased. It is, therefore, the case that, in terms of the same, there is no merit in the case. This is apart from contending that, having courted the earlier judgment by the Division Bench of this Court, nothing survived for consideration. All that transpired was that, following a judgment in another case, where in fact representation had been filed; the case of the petitioner was also directed to be dealt with in the same lines and the writ petition was in fact closed. Only the reasons were to be given to the petitioner, which was duly done. 31. Mr. Shobhit Saharia would submit that it is noteworthy that the petitioner did not approach the Court prior to the publication of the amended Notification dated 19.05.2005 and he approached the Court only on 26.05.2005 and the matter was finally disposed of by this Court by closing it and only granting benefit of communication of the reasons on the representation. 31. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, would, apart from the above submissions, point out that clearly the writ petition is to be dismissed as being barred by res judicata and, in this connection, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & others vs. Amala Annai Higher Secondary School, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 386. 32. Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the matter was suppressed from this Court. The decision of the committee taken in February, 2005 was suppressed. He would also submit that it is not permissible to make the date 15.02.2005, mentioned in the Minutes within which date the Government was to give 30 the list of eligible persons, as sacrosanct. He would try to establish this point with reference to a communication dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure No. 27) issued by the Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Uttarakhand, to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. It reads as follows: “Sanjeev Chopra Industrial Development & IT Secretary Government of Uttaranchal Dehradun No. 503/PS/2005 Dated: 13 December, 2005 Dear Sir, 1. I would like to thank you for your and the visit of the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Industrial Promotion & Policy), GOI to Dehradun and the guidance given for the industrial development of the State. 2. Apart from the various issues arisen in the meeting, the main issue was to notify the khasra numbers of the private industrial area declared by the State Government as per the provision made by the GOI and also of the few industrial units which were existing before 07.01.2003 & whose khasra numbers were left out to enable the new unit coming up in these industrial area and also the existing units to get benefits of special concessional package on their substantial expansion. 3. As agreed during the discussions, details of these private industrial areas and also of the left out existing units outside the industrial area with their khasra number is being forwarded for notification by the GOI. 4. Since it was decided that there should not be much increase in the net area of the declared/notified land, a proposal for deletion of certain khasra numbers as notified by GOI is also being submitted. It is requested that the proposal of addition of khasra numbers of the industrial areas and of the industrial units outside the industrial areas may kindly be got notified by the Finance Ministry (Revenue Department), Govt. of India. With warm regards and best wishes for the New Year. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) 13.12.2005 Shri N.N. Prasad Joint Secretary 31 Ministry of Commerce & Industry Govt. of India (Dept. of Industrial Promotion & Policy) Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Encls: (Details of the Khasra numbers to be notified).” 33. Therefore, he would submit that it is not open to the Government to indicate helplessness and to refuse to extend the benefits of the concessions to the petitioner, which are otherwise available in law. 34. On this submission being made, Mr. Shobhit Saharia brought to our notice a communication dated 21.04.2005 issued by the very same officer, who, as submitted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for SIDCUL, incidentally, was occupying both the posts as Managing Director, SIDCUL (Nodal Agency) and also Secretary in the Industrial Department. We extract the same: “Sanjeev Chopra Secretary Government of Uttaranchal Dehradun No. 20/PS/2005 Date: 21 April, 2005 Dear Alok, Sub: Implementation of decisions taken in the meeting at PMO on February 04, 2005. 1. Please refer to your letter no. F. No. 354/122/2002-TRU dated 12th April, 2005 and earlier correspondence on the captioned subject. I would like to thank you for the keen interest taken by the TRU to solve the issue. 2. In compliance of the decisions taken at the meeting dated February 04, 2005 in the PMO, the Government of Uttaranchal had forwarded the details of khasras to be exchanged to ensure proper planning of these estates vide our letter no. F No. 47/PS/2005 dated 15th February, 2005 and subsequent correspondence. We confirm that the changes in respect to these estates are final and no recommendation for any further changes will be made. 3. However, as the State Government continues to receive representations from Industry Associations, they shall be forwarded through the DIPP for appropriate action within the parameters of the CIP of Government of India for Uttaranchal and Himachal. I would like to reiterate that in this vital matter pertaining to 32 Industrialization of a newly created Special Category State, to say the least, the same norms could be followed as for Himachal Pradesh, created decades ago. With warm regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) Shri Alok Shukla Director (TRU) Room no. 146-G, North Block Deptt. Of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Government of India, New Delhi.” 35. It is submitted that this aspect was, in fact, specifically pleaded also. Therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the State Government to make a request after the amended Notification was brought out on 19.05.2005 by addressing a letter dated 13.12.2005 after nearly seven months. 36. What is the impact of the earlier judgment courted by the petitioner? 37. We notice that the petitioner had approached earlier seeking a prayer for inclusion of his khasra numbers in the Notification. We have noticed from the judgment, which we have extracted, that the Court was not inclined to grant the benefit. In fact, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decision in a writ petition filed by another unit, i.e. M/s Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. We have referred to the said judgment also. The Court proceeded to take the view that, even if there is a mistake in not including certain khasra numbers, the Court would be encroaching on the policy matters, if it was to be persuaded to issue a direction to include specified khasra numbers. The Court, further, discountenanced the plea of discrimination. Thereafter, the Court closed the matter. Finally, the Court, however, proceeded to direct that the decision on the representation be made known to the petitioner therein. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, as we have already noticed, was also disposed of on the same lines. The effect of the same would be that the prayer for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the 33 petitioner must be treated as having been turned down. A relief if it is not granted or if the judgment is silent regarding a particular relief; it is, both, in accordance with the principle of res judicata enumerated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in accordance with general principle of res judicata, which, undoubtedly, applies to writ petitions also; it must be taken to have been impliedly refused and the bar of res judicata applies. In this case, the reasoning given by the Court would leave us in no doubt that the Court was not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. In fact, the Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the earlier judgment, wherein the Court had closed the matter. 38. No doubt, petitioner has a case that the case of the petitioner in the writ petition should have been dealt with in terms of another judgment passed by another Division Bench; whereas, in fact, it is pointed out by Mr. Shobhit Saharia that the parties therein had approached the court earlier having made representations. It would not be open to the petitioner to raise any such contention. Having accepted the said judgment, petitioner did not seek to file any review of the judgment, as did the petitioner in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, following which the case of the petitioner was disposed of. It transpires that M/s Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., petitioner in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, preferred a review. That was dismissed as not pressed; but the Court, however, made it clear that it will not stand in the way of the petitioner challenging the decision on the representation. In this case, petitioner did not do anything of this sort and it must be treated as having accepted the judgment. 39. Even otherwise, petitioner’s case does not commend itself for our acceptance. Government of India brought out a policy, undoubtedly, on 07.01.2003 for the State of Uttarakhand among other States. Under the said policy, a perusal of clause 3 would show that it comprised of granting of benefits to industrial units located in the various places, which are mentioned and which are located in Annexure-I thereto. In other words, if an industrial unit was located in Industrial Estate or a Growth Centre and the like, which are specifically enumerated, and the place found mention 34 in Annexure-I and if a case was brought by them; it would stand on a different footing from the case of the petitioner. This is for the reason that, in clause 3, after enumerating the number of places, where, if a unit is located, it would by itself be sufficient to generate the benefit of the concessions in its favour; the Government of India contemplated conferring of benefits on units located in other areas. They were to be notified. The case of the petitioner would appear to be that it should fall in the Notification dated 10.06.2003, which is brought out as Notification No. 50/2003, which is an area-based notification, under the heading “industrial activity in non-industrial area”, we have already adverted to. Some of the units do find mention therein under the heading Nainital District of State of Uttarakhand. Admittedly, petitioner’s khasra numbers never figured in the Notification brought out by the Government of India. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept that there can be any case based on the principle of promissory estoppel. It may be true that the officials of the Excise Department wrote to the petitioner in the manner they did. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the Excise Department, would, in fact, question the competence of the officials, like the Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, etc. to give a promise, which would bind the Government. It is settled law that a promise, to be binding and to become enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, must be made by a competent person. Even going by the tenor of the letters, it is difficult for us to appreciate the case of promissory estoppel. In this context, we must refer to the representation, which was written by the petitioner in 2010, which we have already extracted. Therein, we notice that the petitioner was, actually, claiming specifically the benefit of Notification No. 49/2003. When it comes to Notification No. 50/2003, what the petitioner itself would say is that the Notification does not include the petitioner’s khasra numbers and that the State has recommended the case of the petitioner. It could not have been the understanding of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to Notification No. 50/2003, as, without an actual Notification being brought out, it is idle to contend that a mere recommendation by the State Government would suffice, in law, to claim the benefit. 35 40. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to draw benefit of the communication dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure No. 4) issued by the Government of India. We notice that the same related to the grant of capital subsidy. We also notice that the prayer as sought in the writ petition (prayer No. 2) clearly indicates that the petitioner does not claim the benefit of the policy dated 08.01.2003. Instead, what the petitioner claims is the benefit of Notification dated 07.01.2003, read with Notifications Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. The claim of the petitioner is, in fact, limited to Notification No. 50/2003. Therefore, we see considerable force in the contention of Mr. Shobhit Saharia that, when policy decision was taken on 07.01.2003, insofar as the petitioner does not come under any of the categories specifically enumerated in clause 3, unless and until the concept of substantial expansion of the unit was delineated and it was, for the first time, delineated only on 10.06.2003 in the Notification itself as meaning 25 per cent expansion with reference to installed capacity; it could not possibly be the bona fide belief of the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of the policy. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had carried out expansion in installed capacity beginning in 2003. It may have carried out the expansion; but, the pertinent question is whether it is entitled on the strength of the same to claim the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003. Insofar as the khasra numbers of the petitioner’s unit and the petitioner’s unit are concerned, they do not find mention either in the original Notification or in the amended Notification dated 19.05.2005. It is quite clear that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said Notification. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that a notification under the Excise Act is the species of subordinate legislation. 41. The decisions, which have been relied on by the petitioner, in our view, are clearly distinguishable and cannot assist the petitioner. In (2007) 4 SCC 221, the court was dealing with the concept of fraud as vitiating the judgments despite the same being rendered right up to the Apex Court’s dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The High Court, in a later round, was persuaded to notice that the earlier judgment was 36 obtained without disclosing a very material fact and the recall application was allowed. 42. In similar way is the judgment in AIR 1991 Karnataka 63. That was a case, where petitions were filed seeking to challenge a notification, which, under law, should have been issued in the Kannada language. In the earlier round, the Government told the court that it was, in fact, brought out in Kannada and the court upheld the notification. In another round of litigation by what can be described as another group of petitioners, on which basis itself, it will be noticed that the earlier judgment could not become res judicata; the court took the view that the conduct of the Government in misleading the court, inasmuch as, it was held out that the notification was brought out in Kannada when it was not brought out in Kannada, amounted to playing fraud on the court. 43. The judgment in (2007) 14 SCC 108 appears to be on similar lines. The reason why the petitioner seeks to draw support from this judgment is that, in the earlier judgment rendered in the case of the petitioner, the official respondents withheld vital information in the form of the decision of the Government of India in February, 2005, as a result of which, the decision rendered by calling upon the Government to furnish reasons on the representation became an exercise in futility and a fait accompli. 44. We would think that the petitioner may not be justified in drawing support from the principles of fraud or misrepresentation. Even assuming that this information would have been available before the court, we would ponder whether the decision would have been to the advantage of the petitioner. We have noticed that the Government of India, at the highest level, streamlined the grant of concessions in conjunction with the State Government and, what is more, the very same officer, who had written letters of recommendation in favour of the petitioner, both, before the amended Notification dated 19.05.2005 and afterwards on 13.12.2005, was also present and he, himself, has written a letter in April, 2003, wherein he has indicated that no more applications will be forwarded for change of khasra numbers. Therefore, the State Government, which must 37 be treated as being interested in getting as many concessions as possible from the Centre, itself, agreed that it will not raise further requests for inclusion. In the final request made by the State, the name of the petitioner and the khasra numbers of the petitioner were not included. Therefore, even if this decision was made known, having regard particularly to the view that was taken by the Court regarding the merits of the case, which was that, even if khasra numbers are not included by way of mistake, the court would be encroaching on to the areas reserved for the policy-maker and it would not give any such direction and also that there is no discrimination, had purported to give a quietus to the litigation; we would think that the case of the petitioner would not stand on a better footing, but it would perhaps be a worse case. This is for the reason that it was not by way of mistake that the Government of the day in the State Government did not recommend the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, though earlier recommended by the very same officer, was not recommended in terms of the decision, which was taken by the Central Government and the State Government together. In other words, the case of the petitioner, apparently, did not fall within the parameters evolved by the authorities. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to notice that a person cannot get a right for an exemption, except when it flows from the words used by the framer of the notification. Admittedly, petitioner did not fall within the terms of the notification. Without inclusion of the khasra numbers, petitioner had no legal right. Its khasra numbers were not included in the final recommendation of the State Government. Therefore, in such circumstances, not much would have turned on the information being withheld, even if we proceed on the basis that there was carelessness in the matter on the part of the respondents in not producing it. 45. Reliance on the decision in State of Bihar & others vs. Kalyanpur Cement Limited, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 274 by the petitioner is also without any basis in regard to the facts. That was a case, where the State Government, in fact, had been promising that the petitioner will be getting the benefit of the exemption notification. The petitioner company had accumulated its losses in the absence of the 38 exemption and it had been declared as a sick unit and, finally, the court found that the case turned on the plea of promissory estoppel. Therefore, we would think that the said judgment cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. 46. The judgment in State of Bihar & others vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. & others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 31, relied on by the petitioner, cannot come to the assistance of the petitioner. Therein, it so transpired that a policy was enunciated for grant of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material. Thereafter, in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, the Government decided to deny the benefit. The court took the view that it would not be open to the Government to issue a notification under Section 7, which would override the incentive policy. This also is a case, where the clear and unambiguous language in clause 10.4 of the exemption policy entitled the party therein to the benefit of the sales tax exemption. Here, in the facts of this case, petitioner, at no stage, was actually entitled in terms of the policy read with Notification dated 10.06.2003 (No. 50/2003). All that had happened was that, at some stage, the State Government made recommendation for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the petitioner. Finally, however, at the relevant point of time, in February, 2005, in pursuance of a high-level committee meeting, it was decided to have certain parameters for inclusion of the khasra numbers. Petitioner, apparently, failed to satisfy the said requirements and, therefore, it was that the final amended Notification was brought out on 19.05.2005, in which petitioner did not figure. It is noteworthy that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner only on 26.05.2005 after the issuance of the Notification. 47. We also reject the reliance placed by the petitioner on communication dated 13.12.2005 issued by the Secretary in the Industrial Department having regard to his own conduct representing the State. It was written by him on 21.04.2005 that there will be no further requests for inclusion. Now, it did not lie in his mouth to, again, make a request, no doubt, this time around, seeking to delete certain areas and to include the khasra numbers of the petitioner. We would think that this 39 communication cannot have the effect of vitiating the amended Notification issued on 19.05.2005, nor can it have the effect of permitting the petitioner to challenge the decision on the representation. Even permitting the petitioner the right to challenge that notification on the basis that it furnished a new cause of action, we would reject the case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption having regard to the fact that, till the issuance of the amended notification and the list which was supplied by the Government of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, petitioner did not figure in the list of recommendees. The khasra numbers of the petitioner were not mentioned. Therefore, there is apparently no basis to complain against the Central Government in regard to its decision not to include the khasra numbers of the petitioner. 48. Therefore, on all grounds, we would think that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the matter. 49. The writ petition, being Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015, fails and is dismissed. 50. As far as the other writ petition, being Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015 is concerned, the impugned Circular provided for recovery during the pendency of the litigation. The impugned Circular provided that, when there is no stay, the recovery proceedings need not be kept in abeyance. Having regard to the fact that we have dismissed the main writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015, we see no reason to keep this writ petition pending. No arguments were separately addressed before us by the petitioner regarding this writ petition. We find that the matter is only to be closed. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. 51. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C. J.) 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 G "