Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd. V. The Union of India

MAT/3/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the decision of the learned Single Judge that upheld the cancellation of their land license by the authorities. The license was originally granted for pearl culture activities, but the authorities found that the land was not being used for this purpose, and there was no evidence of commercial pearl production. The appellants argued that the license was for research and not commercial purposes, and that the land was not sublet. However, the court found that the land was not being used as per the license conditions, and the presence of another company, M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries, indicated subletting.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800504 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana, Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Workmen of Narendra & Company, N. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The State of Telangana, M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and ors.
• Laws Referred To: Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V D SIVABALAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANJILI NAG
• Keywords: Commercial Activity; Land Utilization; Research; Subletting; Pearl culture; Land license
• Section: 115(2); 146; 151; 162

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:- Hon’ble Justice Shampa Sarkar & Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh MAT/3/2023 Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. The Union of India and ors. For the appellants : Ms. Anjili Nag For the Administration : Mr. V.D. Sivabalan For the intervener : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate. Mr. A. K. Sonkar, Mr. Kishore Karmakar Hearing Concluded on : 22.01.2024 Judgement on : 12.04.2024 Shampa Sarkar, J.:- 1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated December 19, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPA 3052 of 2020, this intra court appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate for the appellants has assailed the order on the following grounds:- a) The learned judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the fact that the appellants had not violated the terms and conditions of the licence dated October 9, 2002. b) The show cause notice issued to the appellants did not indicate that the same had been issued with a proposal either to cancel the licence 2 or to resume the land in question. By the show cause notice the appellants were asked to answer few questions with regard to a report regarding non-utilization of the land for the purpose of pearl culture and related activity. c) The learned Judge failed to appreciate that the licence of the land was granted for research and pearl culture and not for any commercial activity. The project involving research and cultivation of pearls could not be measured in terms of commercial production. The land was granted for the purpose of research and invention of a procedure for manufacture of pearls from the oysters available in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. d) Unless violation of the terms and conditions of the licence could be proved, the authorities could not resume the land by cancelling the licence. e) Moreover, occupancy rights had been given to the appellant in respect of the said land and termination of such right could only be effected as per the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. f) The finding of subletting of the land, by the team which visited the site in the absence of the director of the appellant No.1, was also incorrect and based on surmise and conjecture. g) The learned Judge erred in taking into consideration the observations and findings of the authorities by disregarding the fact that the licence was not granted for commercial production. The reliance on the 3 Income Tax Return and the information supplied to the Registrar of Companies, was erroneous. h) Licence was granted upon appreciation of the contribution of the then director, Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar and his dedication and success in the field of research and pearl culture. The licence did not indicate that the said cultivation was for commercial purpose and that a minimum quantity of pearls were to be produced by the appellant no.1 during such cultivation process. i) No profit making factor was incorporated in the licence. The expression “cultivation of pearl culture” should have been read in the context and the purpose for which the licence was granted. The purpose being development of pearl culture activity within the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, by the appellant No.1 company. Taking into account the contribution which the erstwhile director/intervener had made in the field of cultivation of pearl and being impressed with his innovations, the licence to occupy the agricultural land had been granted. j) Various recommendations, paper publications, news reports, appreciation by the Lieutenant Governor, awards and accolades received by the erstwhile director were considered by the authorities. This prompted them to grant the licence to the company. The learned Judge had failed to take such factors into consideration. k) The sole basis for cancellation of the licence was lack of commercial activity and inadequate production of pearls. No such condition had been attached to the licence. 4 3. Ms. Nag drew the attention of the Court to the ‘No Objection’ granted by the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) which, inter alia, stated that the administration did not have any objection if a third party was allowed to carry on pearl cultivation and related activity. Thus, the finding of the authorities in the original order as also in the appeal that the land had been sublet and third party rights had been created, was contrary to the NOC. The learned judge overlooked such fact. 4. According to Ms. Nag, M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries was continuing with the research work. It was the proprietorship concern of the then director. It was not a case of subletting. It was a personal endeavour, of the erstwhile director of the appellant No.1 company. Activity by a third party had been a part of the terms and conditions of the licence. Pointing out to the Form-F (Record of Holding Register) uploaded by the administration, Ms. Nag drew the attention of the court to the fact that an occupancy right in respect of the land had been granted to the appellant No.1 and the land had been recorded as a “Garden”. Thus, the existence of coconut trees on the land was neither contrary to the classification of the land nor the nature of user of the land. The appellant No.1, by continuing to retain the coconut plantation on the land in question, did not commit any breach. The learned court failed to take into consideration that the documents on record would show that pearl culture activity was being carried on by the erstwhile director Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar, who had been appreciated for his work, worldwide. The purpose behind grant of licence of the land in question was to promote the research activity undertaken by the erstwhile director and for development of a specialized process suitable for 5 cultivation of pearls in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. According to Ms. Nag, the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the findings of the appellate authority, that is, the Revenue Secretary was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appellants were not suitably intimated about the intention of the respondents to cancel the licence and resume the land. 5. The finding that none of the documents went to show that any permanent activity in terms of commercial exploitation of the natural resources, i.e., pearl culture was being undertaken by the company, was wholly arbitrary and contrary to the purpose for grant of licence. While the allegation in the show cause notice was that the appellant No.1 was not carrying on pearl culture activity, the findings in the order of the Revenue Secretary were that the appellant No.1 was not engaged in commercial exploitation of natural resources, for the purpose of production of pearl in commercial quantity. 6. It was vehemently contended before this Bench that as per Clause 162 of the Regulation of 1966, the tenant’s right could only be extinguished on certain grounds and definitely not on the ground stated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, subsequently affirmed in the appeal. 7. Similarly, Clause 151 of the 1966 Regulation provided that a tenant was liable to be evicted only if the land was used for a purpose other than for which it had been granted. As per Clause 40 of the said Regulations, the use of the land could not be diverted for any commercial activity as it was an agricultural land and classified as a “Garden” in the land records. 6 8. Ms. Nag relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana reported in 1973 (3) SCC 149. Ms. Nag prayed that the appeal be allowed and the order of the learned Judge be set aside. Mr. Nag urged this Bench to hold that the order of the authorities were passed without considering the purpose for which the licence was granted. 9. Mr. Sivabalan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, invited this Bench to re-evaluate the evidence which had weighed heavily on the minds of the revenue authority leading to the cancellation of licence and resumption of land. The scope of judicial review by the learned Single Judge, was limited. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the findings, did not interfere with the observations of the fact finding authority. The scope of an intra court appeal was even more narrow and unless the order of the learned Single Judge was either perverse or beyond the materials on record, the Division Bench should resist from interfering with the order impugned. To support his contention, learned Advocate relied on the following decisions:- (a) Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 (b) N. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The State of Telangana reported in (2020) 16 SCC 478. 10. According to learned Advocate, a bear perusal of the order of the revenue authority as also the appellate authority would clearly indicate that the orders neither suffered from any procedural defect nor were they passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The finding of fact by the two authorities could not be re-appreciated. The learned Single Judge rightly 7 rejected the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the authority had not committed any procedural error. The licence was granted to the appellant No.1 for the purpose of pearl culture and the authorities specifically reserved the right to revoke the licence and resume the land in the event of breach of the terms and conditions contained therein. 11. The licence had been granted for a pittance, with the specific objective that the land would be used for the purpose of production of pearl and related activities. The failure on the part of the appellant No.1 to utilize the land over a long period, resulted in the issuance of the show cause notice. Such show cause notice was issued in consonance with the terms and conditions of the licence. The land was not a private land of the appellant No.1. The appellant No.1 did not have a tenancy right over such land. The land was a part of the global common and the respondents, as the custodian of the said land were well within their right to resume the same and put the same for better use, in public interest. On this ground, Mr. Sivabalan relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and ors. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 338. No permanent and long term right had been conferred upon the appellant No.1. It was not granted a licence in perpetuity. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman) dated June 25, 2019 was issued in furtherance to the show cause notice dated June 17, 2019. Each and every contention of the appellant No.1, represented by the then director, Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar had been taken into consideration, dealt with and rejected with proper reasons. 12. Mr. Sivabalan urged that the newspaper clippings, the letters of recommendation, the various awards which the erstwhile director had 8 received, did not have any relevance. Such accolades would not have any effect on the decisions of the authorities. The decision of the authorities should be tested on the touchstone of reason. The right to cancel the licence and resume the land were within the powers of the authority and in rightful exercise of such power, the decisions were arrived at. 13. According to learned Advocate, the allegation of the appellant No.1 that the order suffered from error apparent on the face of record because the licence was cancelled solely on the ground that there was no commercial production of pearl, contrary to the purpose for grant of licence was baseless and unfounded. One of the grounds for cancellation of the licence and resumption of land was that the documents filed before the Registrar of Companies would reflect that no pearl culture activity had been carried out and the income from the said land was only agricultural income. The authorities had the right to resume the land, upon arriving at a finding that the conditions of the licence had been breached. 14. In our considered opinion, the scope of an intra court appeal is confined to an examination of the decision making process. The merits of the decision cannot be examined unless the appellate court concludes that the findings of the learned Singe Judge are perverse. As a general rule, the appellate court should neither disturb concurrent finding of two authorities nor interfere with the findings of fact by the writ court. Merely because the appellate court has a better view or a different view, the order of the learned Single Judge does not become vulnerable. Moreover, interference in an intra court appeal, on a finding of fact, should be discouraged. Unless the appellate court arrives at the conclusion that the learned Single Judge had 9 failed to take into account cogent evidence or had passed an order either contrary to law or in ignorance of law, the appellate court is not required to substitute one view with another view on the belief that the view of the appellate court is a better view. 15. On such parameters, this Bench is required to test the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant No.1 is a company limited by shares. By a licence of the year 2002, the appellant No.1 was permitted to occupy the land for the purpose of pearl cultivation, against payment of a premium. The land pertained to Survey No.135/1/P/5 measuring an area of 2 hectares situated at North Bay Village under Ferrargunge Tehsil. The terms and conditions of the licence were as follows:- “1. The licensee shall pay land revenue amounting to Rs.180/- on the dates prescribed under Section 115(2) of the said Regulation every year. The first year’s land revenue being payable on 1.1.2002. The licensee shall also pay the cesses and fees levied under the said Regulation. 2. The licensee shall not sub-let the land without permission of the competent authority under the said Regulation. 3. The licensee shall not use the land under license for any purpose other than cultivation of pearl culture. 4. The land is allotted in lieu of land Survey No.109/2 area 2.00 hectares in village Collinpur under Ferrargunj Tehsil which the firm as already surrendered. 5. The licensee shall obtain necessary environmental clearance from the competent authority for any construction activity on the subject land. 6. The licensee had already paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) vide Challan No.140 dated 23.5.2002 for the land bearing Survey No.109/2 area 2.00 hectares at Collinpur village in Ferrargunj Tehsil, which they have surrendered. So no premium has been charged for the instant allotment. 7. The license shall come into effect from 01.01.2002. 10 If the licensee fails to observe any condition specially mentioned in the license, or to comply with any provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and the rules made thereunder and in force for the time being the granting authority may cancel or modify the licence and resume forthwith the whole or part of the land under licence. In the event of cancellation or resumption of the licence as aforesaid, no compensation shall be paid to the licensee.” 16. Clause 3 of the licence categorically provided that the licensee shall not use the land for any purpose other than cultivation of pearls. Clause 2 provided that the land should not be sub-let without permission of the competent authority, as per the Regulations. The licence came into effect from January 1, 2002. It had been specifically provided that if the licensee failed to observe any of the conditions specially mentioned in the licence or comply with the provisions of the Regulations of 1966, the licence granting authority could cancel or modify the licence or also resume forthwith whole or part of the land under such licence. In the event of cancellation or resumption, no compensation would be paid. 17. The head of Mollsucan Fisheries Division, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, Kerala, had submitted a project report before the administration which indicated that blacklip pearl oyster, namely, pinctada margaritifera were not abundantly available in the island, to support commercial scale mariculture for black pearl production. On May 8, 2019, a tour of the site of the appellants was undertaken for preparation of the report on the pearl culture facility at North Bay. The visiting team submitted a report with findings. 18. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant No.1 by the Deputy Commissioner of South Andaman dated June 17, 2019, inter alia, asking 11 the appellant No.1 to show cause on the findings of the team. Some of such findings are summarized below:- 1. Pre-fab building in a built up area of only about 50 Sqmtrs was the lab and hatchery of the project instead of the entire land. 2. A small plastic tank with freshly collected specimens of Pteria Penguines had been kept. 3. A small tank with dead corals, stones, sand etc. was found. 4. An Algal culture facility was found in one of the rooms, which was not in operation. 5. Some chemicals were kept in containers/bottles. 6. Another Pre-fab structure claimed to be used for pumping of seawater was also noticed in the premises. The pipe line of the hatchery for pumping seawater, was found to be damaged. 7. A floating buoy was seen at sea, near the premises. 8. Some samples of different colors of pearls claimed to have been produced from the unit and the beads used for insertion as nuclei for pearl formation were found. 9. The area was covered with coconut and cashew plantation. A third party was present at the unit. 10. There was no electricity or any power backup system in the premises. There was no live demonstration of the stages of oyster or pearl formation. During the interaction, the Director. claimed that approximately 10,000 pearls were produced from the unit annually, which was disbelieved. It was evident that the hatchery had not been used for some time. Local, enquiry revealed that the pearl culture activity was not being carried on 19. The main allegations in the show-cause notice were that the report revealed that only two small structures were standing on the site which covered approximately 200 Sq mtrs of land and the rest of the land remained unutilized. Although two hectares of land (specified as a hilly) situated at North Bay was recorded in the name of the director of the appellant No.1, some other party was found to be present at the unit. Further, local enquiry revealed that pearl culture activity had not been carried out for more than 7 to 8 years on the said land. The land was found to be covered with coconut plantation. The earlier plantations had not been cleared out by the appellant No.1 for optimum utilization of the land for 12 pearl activity. The allegation was that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was granted to the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.1 also failed to indicate before the Registrar of Companies that apart from agricultural income, the company had earned income from cultivation and commercial production of pearls. The authority clearly indicated in the show cause notice that the company was not utilizing the land for the purpose of pearl culture, which was clearly in violation of condition No.3 of the licence. The said condition was also reproduced in the show cause notice and thus the company was directed to appear with all documents to support its claim and make necessary submissions. 20. The contention of Ms. Nag that the show cause notice was issued beyond the scope of the licence and that the respondents had not indicated that the land would be resumed, is not accepted by this Bench. The last paragraph of the licence indicates that the authority would be entitled to resume the land in case of violation of any of the clauses therein. The show cause notice read as whole would indicate that the same was issued in terms of the provisions of the licence. The relevant portion of the same is quoted below:- “AND WHEREAS, the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj, has also submitted the report stating that the NOR land bearing Sy. No. 135/1/P/5 area 2.00 hects, classified as hilly situated at North Bay village stands recorded in the name the Director of Pearlscent Meritech Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. The report further reveals that 2 small structures are standing on the site that covers approximately 200Sqmtrs of area. The remaining area is vacant and unutilized. Local Inquiry also revealed that no pearl culture activity has been carried out since last 7 to 8 years. Prior to allotment of the land to the present allottee, the land was held by the Andaman Plantation Development as Grant for long lived crops, where upon they had raised coconut plantation. The Plantation still exists and the present allottee has not even cleared the land. He has not utilized the land, except for an area of 200Sq mtrs that amounts to 13 almost non-utilization of the land for purpose for which was actually allotted. It has also been reported that the allottee does not have any immediate plans for further utilization of the said land. AND WHEREAS, the ..... the Registrar of Companies was inspected and observed that M/s Pearlescent Maritech Pvt. Ltd. New share capital of the company is Rs. 1,40,000/-. The company has filed its annual return and financial statement up to the period ended 31/03/2017. The company’s net worth as on 31/03/2017 was Rs. 7,31,706/-. It has also been observed that company don’t have any business income but have some agriculture income. AND WHEREAS, the company is not utilizing the land for the purpose of the pearl culture which is a clear violation of condition no 3 as mentioned in the License, which is reproduced below. \"The Licensee shall not use the land under license for any purpose other than the cultivation of pearl culture\" AND WHEREAS, the case is fixed for hearing on 24/06/2019 at 3 PM. NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby directed to appear before this court on the above said date and time along with all the documents in support of your claim in person or through authorized representative duly instructed on your behalf to make submission before the undersigned.” 21. The appellant No.1, Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar replied to each of the allegations, in detail. A hearing was granted to Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar. The Deputy Commissioner South Andaman district, by order dated June 25, 2019 held that no pearl culture activity was going on. Another firm M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries, was carrying on some activity, but without any permission from the authority. This amounted to subletting and was in violation of clause 2 of the licence. The return filed by the appellant No.1 indicated that no pearl culture business was going on. Thus, the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj was directed to take over possession and correct the record in favour of the Revenue Department. 22. The said order was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 3, 2019. The 14 appellant No.1 was asked to file an appeal under Section 28(d) of the 1966 Regulations. The appellate authority, namely, the Revenue Secretary took up the appeal for hearing and recorded his findings against each and every point mentioned in the show cause notice and dealt with the answers of the appellant No.1. 23. It is a fact that the licence was issued to the appellant No.1 under Section 146 clause-ii of the 1966 Regulation, which is quoted below:- “146 (ii) grant a licence in writing to any person to occupy any land to such extend and for such purposes as may be prescribed.” 24. Initially, land in Survey No.109/2 measuring about 2 hectares at Collinpur, had been allotted. Thereafter, the said land was substituted by another licence dated October 9, 2002, in respect of land bearing Survey No.135/1/P/5 measuring an area of 2 hectares at North Bay Village, Ferrarguaj Tehsil. The licence was issued in favour of the apellants for the purpose of pearl culture. The appellant No.1 submitted before the appellate authority that during tsunami, the unit sustained substantial damage. The director further contended that the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the land had been sub-let to another company was incorrect as the NOC issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement), clearly indicated that a third party could be engaged for the project and the administration would have no objection. It was further stated that the appellant No.1 was a tenant in respect of the land in question and the status of occupancy tenant had been conferred upon the appellant No.1. An occupancy tenant could not be evicted from the land in question without proper procedure. The show cause notice was issued on an erroneous presumption that the said licence had 15 been issued for commercial activity and such clause had been violated. The Deputy Commissioner failed to take into account that the purpose for grant of licence was for cultivation of pearl culture and not for commercial production of pearl. Moreover, the electrical wiring and the electrical installations had been destroyed just before the visit of the team. The director was not present at that time and the connection could not be restored. The report of the team should not have been the sole consideration for the authority to come to a finding that the land was not being used for the purpose for which the licence was granted. The electricity consumption pattern, the fact that the other meters had been disconnected long back and that there was no back up for supply of electricity, could not be the basis for the conclusion that there was no activity of pearl culture in the facility. The buoy was used as a cage after hatching. The presence of the plastic tank with dead corals, stones, sand etc. would indicate that pearl culture activity was in progress in the said facility. As the other director of the appellant No.1 did not co-operate, a third party, that is, M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries had undertaken the research work. Dr. Sonkar was the proprietor of the same. The NOC allowed engagement of a third party for such activity. 25. All the above contentions of the appellants were elaborately discussed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority came to its own independent findings. Those are discussed herein below:- (i) The facts and figures submitted by Electricity Department proved that there was no consumption of electricity during April, 2016 to August, 2019 at the premises of the appellant at North Bay. (ii) That the appellant did not use industrial electrical connection except for very few months and the electrical connection was finally 16 disconnected in May, 2006. 3 phase electrical connection had not been taken, which indicated that there was no production at all. (iii) The submissions of the appellant did not carry any merit as more than 99% of the land at North Bay has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted. The report of the Tehsildar clearly elaborated the fact that there was no pearl culture activity for many years. (iv) In any business, including pearl culture, apart from academic interests the motive of profit making could not be overlooked. Such being the case, it was not understood why a dearer source of electricity would be resorted to, when cheaper source of electricity was at hand. The plea of utilizing genset was an afterthought. There were many contradictions in the statements of the appellants, as could be seen from the submissions made by the appellants before Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman) vide letter dated 24.06.2019. (v) As per 'consumption pattern', no electricity was used by the appellants at North Bay during the period April, 2016 to August, 2019. The appellants on one hand stated that they were using generator sets for pumping of water, while, at the hearing on 24.06.2019 before Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman), it was stated that '....we have small power generator also that we use in such crisis situation....'. Thus, the appellants were changing their stand time and again. The appellants did not consume requisite electricity at the premises at North Bay, which was essential for the project under reference. This again proved that there was no commercial production of pearls. (vi) The inspection report of Secretary (Fisheries) again substantiated the fact that no electricity was used by the appellants at North Bay and no proof of use of Genset was shown during the course of hearing. Further, the appellants failed to produce any proof of production as claimed. (vii) Even the factum of research and pearl culture was not confirmed as the laboratory was non-functional, water pipes were damaged, electricity consumption was absent. The appellants did not provide any details of manpower deployed for pearl culture. (viii) Further, the land was not utilized, as seen from various reports. Broken infrastructure, non-utilization of electricity, non-functional water supply, absence of manpower and non-availability of pearls at North Bay, led to the conclusion that the appellants had been making incorrect claims of 'pearl culture' so that the land continued to be in their possession. 17 (ix) Allowing M/s Marine Aquaculture Industry to carry on Pearl culture activities tantamounted to transfer of the property. (x) The appellants conceded multiple times before Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman) and before the appellate authority that they had been using the land for coconut plantation. As per the licence conditions, the land was allotted for pearl culture. The appellants confessed that they were using coconut and other plantations on the land to gain revenue. This was in gross violation of the conditions. 26. The appellate authority held as follows:- “In view of the discussions deliberated above and the detailed analysis of the case, I find no infirmity in the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman dated 25.06.2019 and the appellants have violated the provisions of ANI LR&LRR 1966. Thus, the contentions of appellants in an appeal before the undersigned are baseless and are devoid of merit. Under such circumstances, I state that the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman) dated 25.06.2019 as just, fair and equitable. Accordingly, I uphold the Order of Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman vide No.805 dated 25.06.2019 passed in RC No.129/DC(SA)/2019.” 27. The above order was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Judge recorded the facts of the case and considered the inspection report Nine reasons why the inspection team arrived at the conclusion that pearl cultivation was not going on in the facility had been mentioned. The claim of the appellant No.1 that 10000 pearls were being produced every year was rejected on the basis of the balance-sheet of the company. The evidence of non-consumption of electricity and the fact that the source of income recorded in the Income Tax return was agricultural, i.e., coconut and cashew, led the learned Single Judge to hold that the authorities were correct. Moreover, it was found that another proprietorship concern called, 18 M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries, was functioning on the land, which had other businesses. 28. The learned Court considered the submissions of Ms. Nag and came to the finding that the newspaper reports, visits by dignitaries, the award received by the then Director of the appellant No.1, would be of no consequence for determining whether the terms and conditions of the licence had been violated or not. Moreover, it was neither mentioned nor argued by the then director that the licence had been issued for research activity alone and not for commercial activity. Neither before the Deputy Commissioner nor before the appellant authority, such plea was taken. Rather, in the answer to each of the question, the then director tried to urge that the findings of the team which visited the spot and also the queries in the show cause notice were not tenable and the non-production of pearl, absence of electricity, non-functional hatchery were sought to be justified with excuses like tsunami, temporary damage to the electrical wiring absence of the director, genset back up for power, etc. 29. Thus, the learned Court dismissed the writ petition upon coming to the finding that there was no perversity in the orders impugned. The principles of natural justice was followed and the points raised by the appellant No.1 were discussed. The reasons assigned by the authorities, justifying their final conclusion were accepted by the learned Single Judge. 30. This Bench has already recorded the findings of the appellate authority which had been impugned before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, in judicial review, was not required to re-appreciate the evidence. The learned single Judge rightly held that the 19 recommendations, the awards, the success of Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar would not in any way be relevant for the purpose of determining whether the land which was licensed to the appellant No.1 under Regulation 146 of the 1966, had been rightly resumed or not. The finding that the terms and conditions of the licence had been violated was also accepted by the learned Judge. Even assuming that the licence was not issued for commercial production of pearl and sale thereof, the other findings with regard to non-utilization of the entire land which was licensed at a very low premium for the purpose of cultivation of pearl culture, are backed by the records. The appellant No.1 could not show anything to the contrary, which would indicate that the entire land had been put to optimum use. Rather, the director of the appellant No.1 admitted before the authority that the land generated substantial income from the coconut and cashew plantations, which were serving as a cushion to fund the facility. The disconnected electric supply, absence of consumption of electricity, the damaged water pipes etc. would clearly indicate that no activity of pearl culture, even at the level of research, was being continued. Rather, the contention of Dr. Sonkar that 10000 pearls were being manufactured annually, could not be substantiated with cogent evidence. The balance sheet of the company did not indicate so. It is also pertinent to mention that M/s Marine Aquaculture Industries was a separate company enlisted with Udyog Aadhar, which was carrying on other business activities. Thus, the presence of the said company in the facility was considered to be sub-letting, which was prohibited by the licence. The appellate authority was of the view that the NOC had permitted engagement of a third party for the pearl culture activity as an agent of the appellant 20 No.1. That could not mean that the licensee would allow another company to operate from the said site, without any permission from the authority. 31. The documents before the learned Single Judge and also before this Bench clearly indicate that there were sufficient reasons for the fact finding authorities to arrive at a conclusion that the purpose for which the licence was issued had been defeated and the terms were violated since long. Thus, the respondents were justified in cancelling the licence and resuming the land. Neither was the learned Single Judge required to go into the questions of the fact which were already on record, nor was the learned Single Judge required to decide the issue of eviction of a tenant. The adjudication was correctly restricted to the allegation of violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and the writ court was not required to delve deeper into the reciprocal contractual obligations of the parties. 32. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 33. MAT 4, 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023 had been filed by Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar, erstwhile director being aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate appeared for Dr. Sonkar and submitted that Dr. Sonkar did not wish to challenge the orders passed by the authorities on merits, but Dr. Sonkar was apprehensive that the said orders would be treated as a declaration of his incompetence and inability to run the facility. The same would cause disrepute to him. 21 34. Ms. Nag submitted that the contentions of Dr. Sonkar should not be taken into consideration at all, because he ceased to be a director of the appellant No.1 and did not have any locus to challenge the said orders. 35. MAT 4, 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023 was disposed of by an earlier order of this Bench as Dr. Sonkar through his learned Senior Advocate was allowed to intervene in MAT 3 of 2023. 36. Having considered Mr. Bhattacharya’s submissions, this Bench holds that this order is limited to the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition with regard to the cancellation of licence and resumption of the land which was allotted to the appellant No.1 company, of which Dr. Sonkar is no more a part. Dr. Sonkar has not argued on merits of the orders passed by the authorities. He is only concerned about the order affecting his reputation and position. This order is not a declaration on the personal achievements or failure of Dr. Sonkar. Dr. Sonkar’s right to continue with any pearl culture activity under the administration or under any other authority have not been decided in this proceeding. 37. This order is restricted to the order of cancellation of licence and the resumption of land from the appellants. 38. The appeal is disposed of. 39. There shall be no order as to costs. 40. Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.) "