essar oil v state of gujarat
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
1/29
SCA/24233/2007 1 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24233 of 2007
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
AND
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=================================================
1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be alloed to seethe !udgment "
# $o be referred to the Reporter or not "
%Whether their Lordships ish to see the fair copy of the !udgment "
&Whether this case involves a substantial 'uestion of laas to the interpretation of the constitution of (ndia) 1*+,or any order made thereunder "
+ Whether it is to be circulated to the civil !udge "
=================================================ESSAR OIL LTD & 1 P!"#"#o$!%'(
V!%')'STATE OF GUJARAT THRO* SECRETAR+ & 3 R!',o$-!$"'(
================================================= Appearance :-R .S /A/A0A$() SR A2034A$5 ith -R .567R 8A/29( for /A/A0A$( ASS34(A$5S forPetitioners; : 1 < #-R .A-AL $R(052() A2034A$5 85/5RAL ith -S SA/855$A 0(S95/) A8P for Respondents; :1) &)2S AFF/3$ F(L52 /; for Respondents; : 1)/3$(45 S5R052 6 2S for Respondents; : # < %
=================================================
CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
/$-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
D/"! 2204200ORAL JUDGMENT
P!% HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH(
$his petition under Article ##> of the 4onstitution is
directed against denial of sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
2/29
SCA/24233/2007 2 JUDGMENT
petitionerB or the petitioner 4ompanyB; under the 8overnment of
8u!arat 4apital (nvestment (ncentive Premier Prestigious Scheme)
1**+@#,,, hereinafter referred to as the said SchemeB;
# $he facts leading to filing of this petition may be set out
in three parts @ the first part relating to initial setting up of the
pro!ect and the scheme floated by the State 8overnment for
granting incentives to the industries coming up in the bacCard
areasD the second part narrating the events hich prevented the
petitioner 4ompany from completing the pro!ect ithin the time
limit and the conse'uent impact by denial of the benefits of the
sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
3/29
SCA/24233/2007 3 JUDGMENT
8overnment of (ndia to issue suitable orders to allo the first
petitioner to maCe geophysical survey in -arine /ational
ParCHSanctuary area $he proposal as forarded by the 4hief
4onservator of Forests) hopal to the 8overnment of (ndia on
1+,+1**+ 3n ,I,*1**+) the State 8overnment in its Forests
and 5nvironment 2epartment informed the 8overnment of (ndia in
the -inistry of 5nvironment and Forests) inter alia) that the
approval in principle as granted to the petitioner 4ompany to
install Single uoy -ooring H 4rude 3il $erminal H etty and
connecting pipeline in the /ational -arine ParC and Sanctuary
area in 0adinar) 2istrict amnagar on the terms and conditions to
be decided in due course by the State 8overnment
%% $he State 8overnment in the (ndustries and -ines
2epartment vide Resolution dated 11,*1**+ introduced a scheme
called 4apital (nvestment (ncentive to PremierHPrestigious 7nit
Scheme) 1**+,I1**+ upto 1+,I#,,, (t is not
necessary to refer to all the clauses of the Scheme Suffice it to
state that the petitioner fell in the category of premier unit ie ne
industrial unit having a pro!ect cost of more than Rs1),,,H< crores
and employing 1,, orCers on a regular basis and folloing the
employment policy of the State 8overnment 4lause v; of the
Scheme defined premier unit in the folloing terms :<
v; PR5-(5R 7/($
A ne industrial unit or industrial comple? fulfillingthe folloing criteria ill be considered forgranting status of Premier 7nitB
a; $he industrial unit shall have a pro!ect cost ofRs+,, crores or more Such units having pro!ectcost of Rs1),,, crores and above shall be entitledfor e?tended period to avail incentive as providedunder para >
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
4/29
SCA/24233/2007 4 JUDGMENT
b; 3nly one unit per taluCa ill be eligible forthe Premier 7nit status (n banned area no unit ispermitted
c; $he unit shall employ at least 1,, orCers ona regular basis and shall follo the employmentpolicy of the State 8overnmentB
Part@(( of the said Scheme provided that the rate of incentive
ould depend on the location) investment and status of the pro!ect
$he incentives offered ere sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
5/29
SCA/24233/2007 5 JUDGMENT
commercial production as shon belo :
a; $he unit ith pro!ect cost above Rs1,,crores but belo Rs%,, crores should go into
commercial production on or before 1+th
August #,,#
b; $he unit ith pro!ect cost more than Rs%,,crores should go into commercial productionon or before 1+th February #,,%
Such units shall have to apply to industries4ommissioner for e?tending date of commercialproduction by %1st August #,,,B
Kemphasis supplied
%+ (t is the petitionerEs case that the petitioner had
obtained provisional registration as a Premier 7nit by (ndustries
4ommissioner letter dated #+,>1*** Anne?ure @ (; that more
than #+G of the pro!ect cost as incurred before 1+,I#,,, and
that as per the above clause of the Scheme) the petitioner unit ith
pro!ect cost of more than Rs%,,H< crores as re'uired to go intocommercial production on or before 1+,##,,% $he time limit as
subse'uently e?tended upto 1+,I#,,% vide 8overnment
Resolution dated 1#,&#,,1 Page
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
6/29
SCA/24233/2007 6 JUDGMENT
falling under -arine /ational ParC H -arine Sanctuary for various
purposes sub!ect to certain terms and conditions including
obtaining permission of the 4entral 8overnment under the Forest
4onservation Act) 1*I, and also getting clearance under the 4RM
Regulations and the petitioner 4ompany as granted the 4entral
8overnment permission under the Forests 4onservation Act on
,I1#1*** and the 4RM clearance as granted on ,%11#,,,)
before the petitioner 4ompany could act on the basis of the
aforesaid permission and clearance) by !udgment dated 1%) 1I) #,)
#Jth uly #,,, and ,%rd August #,,, in Public (nterest Litigation
being Special 4ivil Application /os1JJI) +&J> and +*#I of #,,,) a
2ivision ench of this 4ourt to hich one of us as a party @ Ravi
R $ripathi) ; restrained the State 8overnment from granting any
more authoriNation and permission for laying don any pipeline in
any part of the sanctuary of the /ational ParC and in case any
applications are pending) the same shall be decided Ceeping in vie
the interpretation placed by the 2ivision ench on Section #* of the
Wild Life Protection; Act) 1*J# in light of the observations made in
the !udgment
&# $he aforesaid Public (nterest Litigation as commenced
for maCing grievance against consideration of the application of
harat 3man Refineries Ltd for laying a pipeline in the -arine
ParC H Sanctuary area $he present petitioner 4ompany as not a
party to any of the above petitions 2uring the course of hearing)
the 4ourt had put a 'uery to the learned counsel for the State
8overnment as to hether any more applications of this nature
applications for laying pipeline through the /ational -arine ParC H
Sanctuary area; ere pending before the State 8overnment and
hether the State 8overnment as inclined to grant any more
authoriNations and permissions for laying such pipelines (n
response to the 'uery) the learned 8overnment counsel had placed
a copy of the letter dated #+,J#,,, sent to him by the 7nder
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
7/29
SCA/24233/2007 7 JUDGMENT
Secretary to the 8overnment along ith a copy of the letter dated
,I,*1**+) hich as sent to the Secretary of -inistry of
5nvironment and Forests) 8overnment of (ndia) by the 7nder
Secretary) Forests and 5nvironment 2epartment) 8overnment of
8u!arat $he 4ourt noted that there ere to more proposals
pending ith the State 8overnment @ one from 5ssar 3il Ltd ie
the present petitioner 4ompany and the other from 8u!arat
Poshitra Port Ltd $he 4ourt noted the fact that four pipelines ere
already in e?istence and the fifth one as the pipeline to be laid
don by harat 3man Refineries Ltd for hich the authoriNation
as granted in February #,,, and hich as the sub!ect matter of
challenge in those three petitions $he 4ourt thereupon observed
that enough is enoughB) and then restrained the State 8overnment
from giving any more authoriNation and permission for laying don
any pipeline in any part of the Sanctuary or the /ational -arine
ParC
&% Aggrieved by the above directions hich ere given bythe 4ourt ithout giving the petitioner company an opportunity of
being heard) the petitioner 4ompany filed revie applications
hich came to be disposed of by order dated #%,##,,1 on the
ground that the grievance as beyond the scope of revie
&& $he petitioner 4ompany) therefore) moved the 9onEble
Supreme 4ourt by filing Special Leave Petition 4ivil; /o%>+& of#,,1 3n 11,+#,,1) the Ape? 4ourt granted stay of the 9igh
4ourt !udgment in so far as the petitioner as concerned (t
appears that in vie of the above stay order granted by the 9onEble
Supreme 4ourt) the petitioner 4ompany moved the State
8overnment for permitting the petitioner 4ompany to proceed ith
the construction of !etty and laying the pipeline y letter dated
#*1,#,,1) the State 8overnment in the Forests and 5nvironment
2epartment specifically called upon the petitioner 4ompany to
ensure that no construction activities ere commenced before
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
8/29
SCA/24233/2007 8 JUDGMENT
obtaining all necessary clearances from different 8overnment
departments) agencies and the conditions stipulated by the -inistry
of 5nvironment and Forests) 8overnment of (ndia as ell as the
Forests and 5nvironment 2epartment of the State 8overnment
ere strictly complied ith (n vie of absence of any permission
from the 4hief Wild Life Warden) 8u!arat State under Section #* of
the Wild Life Protection; Act) 1*J#) the petitioner could not
commence the construction of !etty or laying don the pipeline in
the /ational -arine ParC H Sanctuary area and) therefore) could not
commence commercial production
&+ $he petitioner had already applied for registration
before 1+,I#,,, and had incurred more than #+G cost before
1+,I#,,, 3n 1I,J#,,1) the petitioner as accordingly granted
the pipeline registrationB valid upto 1+,I#,,% ithin hich the
petitioner 4ompany as re'uired to start commercial production
$he petitioner again made a representation to the (ndustries
4ommissioner on ,J,+#,,# re'uesting him to grant the e?tension
for a further period of three years ie upto August #,,> to
commence commercial production for the purpose of availing the
incentive benefit under the Scheme and pointed out that the delay
in completing the pro!ect and conse'uent delay in starting
commercial production as due to the factors beyond the control of
the petitioner y letter dated #I,+#,,#) the (ndustries
4ommissioner re!ected the re'uest $he petitioner) therefore)
submitted a representation dated 1*,>#,,# to the 4hief -inister
pointing out the circumstances hich had delayed the completion
of the pro!ect Similar representations ere thereafter made on
1&,%#,,%) ,#1##,,% and #>1##,,% (t appears that the said
representations ere not responded to
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
9/29
SCA/24233/2007 9 JUDGMENT
+, A,!6 Co)%" J)-98!$"= G%/$" of P!%8#''#o$ /$-Co88!$!8!$" of P%o-)"#o$
+1 7ltimately on 1*,1#,,&) the 9onEble Supreme 4ourt
'uashed and set aside the !udgment dated ,%,I#,,, of this 4ourt
and directed the State 8overnment to issue the authoriNation in the
re'uisite format under Sections #* and %+ of the Wild Life
Protection; Act ithin a fortnight after disapproving the
interpretation placed by the 9igh 4ourt on the provisions of the
Wild Life Protection; Act) 1*J# $he 9onEble Supreme 4ourt has
taCen the vie in the !udgment dated 1*,1#,,& that the
permission granted by the State 8overnment on 1*1,#,,J as
the permission contemplated by Section #* of the Wild Life
Protection; Act $he Ape? 4ourt concluded the !udgment reported
in #,,& #; S44 %*# in terms of the folloing directions :<
>& As far as the appellant 5ssar 3il Ltd; isconcerned) hoever) the ay is no clear toproceed ith the pro!ect in accordance ith the
permissions granted to it under the WPA) F4A and5PA $he State 8overnment ill issue theauthoriNation in the re'uisite format underSections #* and %+ ithin a fortnight We)therefore) allo the appeals to the e?tent statedith no order as to costsB
+# (n compliance ith the above !udgment) by letter dated
1#,##,,&) the State 8overnment authoriNed the 4hief Wild Life
Warden) 8u!arat State under Sections #* and %+ >; of the Wild LifeProtection; Act to permit the petitioner 4ompany for laying oil
pipeline in the /ational -arine ParC H Sanctuary area $he 4hief
Wild Life Warden issued the re'uisite permission on #J,##,,&
+% (n vie of the above permission granted by the 4hief
Wild Life Warden under Sections #* and %+ of the Wild Life
Protection; Act) the petitioner 4ompany again sent representations
dated ,>,&#,,&) 1#,J#,,& and #J,J#,,& to the 8overnment
re'uesting for e?tending the time limit for commencement of
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
10/29
SCA/24233/2007 10 JUDGMENT
commercial production for the purpose of sales ta? deferment
incentive scheme (t appears that in vie of the above
representations) the State 8overnment in the (ndustries and -ines
2epartment vide Resolution dated 1,,+#,,> Anne?ure11#,,>) the petitioner 4ompany commenced
production and started paying sales, S):8#''#o$' o$ :!/5f of "! P!"#"#o$!% Co8,/$;
At the hearing of this petition) -r .S /anavati) learned
counsel for the petitioner 4ompany has referred to the aforesaid
events and has taCen us through the !udgment of the 2ivision
ench of this 4ourt rendered on 1%th ulyH%rd August) #,,, and the
decision of the Ape? 4ourt dated 1*,1#,,& and has made the
submissions :
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
11/29
SCA/24233/2007 11 JUDGMENT
>1 3nly on account of the in!unction granted by this 4ourt
on 1%th ulyH%rd August) #,,, hich as ultimately set aside by the
9onEble Supreme 4ourt on 1*,1#,,&) the State 8overnment had
not granted any permission or authoriNation for proceeding ith
construction of the !etty and laying the pipeline 5ven after interim
stay of the 9igh 4ourt !udgment as granted by the 9onEble
Supreme 4ourt on 11,+#,,1) the State 8overnment did not direct
the 4hief Wild Life Warden to grant the permission $he
permission by the 4hief Wild Life Warden as granted only on
#J,##,,& and therefore) the entire period from 1%,J#,,, upto
#J,##,,& ought to be e?cluded hile considering the 'uestion
hether the petitioner 4ompany had commenced commercial
production ithin the time limit stipulated by the concerned
8overnment Resolutions (t is submitted that if the above period is
e?cluded or in other ords) if three years and #%, days are added)
it ould e?tend the time limit for commencing commercial
production upto #nd April) #,,J Since the petitioner had already
commenced the production on #>11#,,>) the petitioner had
complied ith the terms and conditions of the incentive scheme and
therefore) the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of the
incentive scheme on the ground of delay in commencing the
commercial production hich delay as only on account of the
in!unction hich as granted by this 4ourt in Public (nterest
Litigation to hich the petitioner 4ompany as not even !oined as a
party
># While in the memo of the petition some
allegationsHsubmissions have been made attributing the delay to the
Forests and 4onservation 2epartment of State 8overnment) but the
petitioner 4ompany is not interested in pursuing those allegations
and in fact ould liCe to ithdra those allegations and the
petitioner ould liCe to invoCe the folloing ma?ims of e'uity :
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
12/29
SCA/24233/2007 12 JUDGMENT
i; An act of the 4ourt shall pre!udice no manB) and
ii; $he la does not compel a man to do that hich he
cannot possibly performB
>% (n vie of the permission granted by the State
8overnment on 1>1,1**J) the petitioner had commenced the
construction orC of laying of ater intaCe !etty and product !etty
in the -arine /ational ParC and in the -arine Sanctuary area $he
petitioners ere not only prevented from doing so) but the Forest
2epartment launched prosecution against the petitioners under
various provisions of the Wild Life Protection; Act and
5nvironment Protection Act against the contractor doing the orC
on behalf of the 4ompany and therefore) the petitioners had no
other alternative but to stop the orC and could not commence the
orC even after the 4entral 8overnment granted its formal
approval under the provisions of the Forests 4onservation Act on
,I1#1*** and the 4RM permission as granted on ,%11#,,, and
even thereafter) hen the !udgment dated 1%th ulyH%rd August) #,,,
of this 4ourt as stayed by the 9onEble Supreme 4ourt on
11,+#,,1) no permission as granted by the 4hief Wild Life
Warden and in fact by letter dated #*1,#,,1) the State
8overnment informed the petitioner 4ompany not to do any orC
ithout obtaining the re'uisite permissions and clearances under
various statutes $he petitioner had done all that as re'uired to
be done by the petitioner for obtaining such permissions and
clearances) but if the authorities did not grant such permissions for
no fault of the petitioner) the petitioner could not be blamed nor
could the petitioner be held to be ineligible for availing of the
incentive under the Scheme for hich pro!ect) the petitioners had
already incurred e?penditure of Rs +%II crores as recorded in the
!udgment of the Ape? 4ourt (n fact the petitioners have already
incurred capital e?penditure of appro?imately Rs >,,, crores by
the end of #,,> and have commenced production in /ovember
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
13/29
SCA/24233/2007 13 JUDGMENT
#,,> Apart from the fact that the petitioner had obtained the
provisional premier registration under the 1**+1*** Anne?ure& $he 4ourts have held that no act of the 4ourt shall
pre!udice any party nor does the la compel any party to do that
hich cannot possibly be performed Strong reliance is placed on
the decision of the Ape? 4ourt in South 5astern 4oalfields Ltd 0s
State of -P) #,,%; I S44 >&I and more particularly on the
observations made in Para #I thereof
>+ Reliance is also placed on the decision of the 9onEble
Supreme 4ourt in Ra! .umar 2ey 0s $arapada 2ey) 1*IJ; & S44
%*I particularly the observations made in Para > thereof Reliance
is also placed on the decision in areilly 2evelopment Authority 0s
-ethodist 4hurch of (ndia) 1*II; Supp S44 1J& for the purpose
of contending that in such matters) the period during hich the
orC of construction has been stopped) has to be e?cluded hile
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
14/29
SCA/24233/2007 14 JUDGMENT
determining hether there as any breach of condition stipulated
in the contract
J S):8#''#o$' o$ :!/5f of "! S"/"! Go!%$8!$"
3n the other hand) -r .amal $rivedi) learned Advocate
8eneral assisted by -s Sangeeta 0ishen) learned A8P has opposed
the petition and made the folloing submissions :<
J1 $he petition suffers from delay) laches and
ac'uiescence $he petitioners ere already informed by the(ndustries 4ommissioner as far bacC as on #I,+#,,# that it as
not possible to accord any e?tension of the time limit for
commencing commercial production as per the prevailing policy
Since no petition as filed at the relevant time) the present petition
filed in September #,,J as delayed by more than five years
J# $he petitioner has not made reference to the earlier
round of litigation) herein another 2ivision ench of this 4ourt
had passed order dated #,,&1*** directing the petitioner herein
not to carry on any construction activity in -arine /ational ParC H
-arine Sanctuary area against the statutory provisions including
the provisions contained in the Wild Life Protection; Act) 1*J#
$he petitioner had not challenged the said order before the higher
forum
J% 0ide 8overnment Resolution dated 1,,+#,,>) the
State 8overnment has formed a 4ommittee to e?amine various
issues pertaining to the petitionerEs group and to recommend to the
8overnment ho the issues can be sorted out $he issues raised by
the petitioner in the present petition have also been included in the
sub!ect matters to be e?amined by the 4ommittee and therefore
also) the present petition may not be entertained
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
15/29
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
16/29
SCA/24233/2007 16 JUDGMENT
DISCUSSION
I 9aving heard the learned counsel for the parties) e
have given an?ious and thoughtful consideration to the issues
involved in this petition
* As far as the preliminary contention raised by the
learned Advocate 8eneral is concerned) though the petition filed in
September #,,J may appear to be prima facie delayed) the delay is
sufficiently e?plained After the (ndustries 4ommissioner re!ected
the application for e?tension on #I+#,,#) the petitioner 4ompany
made a representation to the 4hief -inister on 1*>#,,# pointing
out the circumstances hich ere delaying completion of the
pro!ect $hat as also the time hen the litigation as pending
before the 9onEble Supreme 4ourt and the very fact that after the
Supreme 4ourt rendered the decision on 1*1#,,& and the 4hief
Wild Life Warden granted the permission on #J##,,&) pursuant to
the petitioner 4ompanyEs representations in #,,&) the State
8overnment itself constituted a 4ommittee on 1,,+#,,> to looC
into) inter alia) the petitionerEs grievance indicates that the issue
as alive and the State 8overnment as ready to consider the
petitionerEs re'uest for suitable reliefs ut since the 4ommittee
constituted as far bacC as in -ay #,,> made no progress) the
petitioner could not be e?pected to ait indefinitely because the
very purpose of availing of the sales ta? deferment incentive ould
be frustrated) if the petitioner has to go on paying sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
17/29
SCA/24233/2007 17 JUDGMENT
Legislations $hat petition came to be disposed of on #,,I1***
ith a direction to the 5ssar 3il Ltd petitioner herein; to furnish
an undertaCing to the effect that until sanction by the appropriate
authority as re'uired by la is granted) no construction ill be
carried out $he State 8overnment had granted the permission on
1>1,1**J) the 4entral 8overnment had granted the permission on
,I1#1*** and the 4RM permission as granted on ,%11#,,,
What prevented the petitioner 4ompany from carrying on the
construction as the restraint order passed by this 4ourt on 1%th
ulyH%rd August) #,,, in a P(L to hich the petitioner 4ompany as
not even !oined as a party) that too on the basis of the
interpretation of the provisions of Section #* of the Wild Life
Protection; Act) 1*J# hich did not commend to the 9onEble
Supreme 4ourt and therefore) it as only on 1*,1#,,& that the
9onEble Supreme 4ourt after placing correct interpretation on the
provisions of the Wild Life Protection; Act directed the State
8overnment to continue to act on the basis of the permission
granted by the State 8overnment as far bacC as on 1>1,1**J and
further directed the State 8overnment to authoriNe the 4hief Wild
Life Warden) 8u!arat State under Sections #* and %+ of the Act for
permitting the petitioner to lay the oil pipeline We) therefore) see
no ground to dismiss the petition on the ground of suppression of
facts
11 As regards the contention that the State 8overnment
itself has appointed a 4ommittee to looC into the matter) e ould
have ordinarily accepted the said submission and re'uired the
petitioner to ait for some time) but the very fact that in spite of
constitution of the 4ommittee as far bacC as in -ay #,,>) no
progress has been made and in the meantime) the petitioner has
already commenced commercial production and is re'uired to pay
ta?) e have taCen up this petition for final hearing to decide the
'uestion raised in the petition
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
18/29
SCA/24233/2007 18 JUDGMENT
1# As regards the contention that the petitioner has
already started paying ta? and has ac'uiesced into the matter and
therefore) the petition may not be entertained) the very fact that
upon commencement of commercial production the petitioner has
started paying ta? is not a factor hich could go against the
petitioner 3n the contrary) the petitionerEs not paying the ta? even
after commencement of commercial production ould have been an
act contrary to the provisions of the statute because so far the
petitioner has not been granted the benefit of sales&I) the Ape? 4ourt made the folloing observation
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
19/29
SCA/24233/2007 19 JUDGMENT
in Paras #J and #I :<
#J Section 1&& 4P4 is not the fountain source ofrestitution) it is rather a statutory recognition of apre
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
20/29
SCA/24233/2007 20 JUDGMENT
4ourt is not a rule confined to an erroneous act ofthe courtD the Eact of the courtE embraces ithin itsseep all such acts as to hich the court may forman opinion in any legal proceedings that the 4ourt
ould not have so acted had it been correctlyapprised of the facts and the la $he factorattracting applicability of restitution is not the actof the 4ourt being rongful or a mistaCe or errorcommitted by the courtD the test is hether onaccount of an act of the party persuading the 4ourtto pass an order held at the end as not sustainable)has resulted in one party gaining an advantagehich it ould not have otherise earned) or theother party has suffered an impoverishment hichit ould not have suffered but for the order of the4ourt and the act of such party $he 'uantum ofrestitution) depending on the facts andcircumstances of a given case) may taCe intoconsideration not only hat the party e?cludedould have made but also hat the party underobligation has or might reasonably have made$here is nothing rong in the parties demandingbeing placed in the same position in hich theyould have been had the 4ourt not intervened byits interim order hen at the end of the
proceedings the 4ourt pronounces its !udicial verdict hich does not match ith andcountenance its on interim verdict Whenevercalled upon to ad!udicate) the 4ourt ould act incon!unction ith hat is the real and substantial !ustice $he in!ury) if any) caused by the act of thecourt shall be undone and the gain hich the partyould have earned unless it as interdicted by theorder of the court ould be restored to orconferred on the party by suitably commanding theparty liable to do so Any opinion to the contrary
ould lead to un!ust if not disastrousconse'uencesB
Kemphasis supplied
1+ /o e may turn to the Ape? 4ourt !udgment in 5ssar
3il Ltd) #,,& #; S44 %*# highlighting the facts shoing ho the
9igh 4ourt !udgment dated 1%th ulyH%rd August) #,,, had affected
the present petitioner) hich as not a party to any of the petitions
P(L; in hich the said !udgment as rendered by this 4ourt
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
21/29
SCA/24233/2007 21 JUDGMENT
1+1 $he Ape? 4ourt observed in Para %* of the !udgment
dated 1*1#,,& that it as the appellantEs case and the records
shoed that it as encouraged by the State 8overnment to set up a
ma!or venture at 0adinar in amnagar 2istrict of 8u!arat as a 1,,G
e?ported oriented unit for refining of petroleum products ith a
capacity of * million tons per annum at an estimated pro!ect cost of
Rs1*,,H< crores $he then 4hief -inister of the State of 8u!arat
had ritten a letter dated 11,&1**, to the -inistry of Planning)
8overnment of (ndia stating that the pro!ect as e?pected to
generate foreign e?change earnings of above Rs%,,,H< crores
ithin a period of five years (t as anticipated by the State
8overnment that the pro!ect ould completely change the face of
the 0adinar area) hich as traditionally a bacCard area of
8u!arat and therefore) the pro!ect ould offer direct and indirect
employment and ould encourage groth of various other ancillary
industries in that region $he letter further stated that the pro!ect
had the full support of the 8overnment of 8u!arat and it as being
accorded the highest priority and that the appellantEs proposal for
setting up the oil refinery should be cleared by the 8overnment of
(ndia urgently $he clearance for setting up the oil refinery as
accordingly granted by the 8overnment of (ndia
1+# $he Ape? 4ourt then recorded the subse'uent history
leading upto the State 8overnment permission on 1>1,1**J under
Section #* of the Wild Life Protection; Act) 1*J# and also the
approval of the 4entral 8overnment granted on #J111***J and
,I1#1*** $he Ape? 4ourt also observed in Para +# of the
!udgment as under :<
3ne ould have thought that the clearance underthe WPA Wild Life Protection Act; as completedby this (n fact) according to the appellant) they
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
22/29
SCA/24233/2007 22 JUDGMENT
had invested Rs+%II&1 crores in setting up thepro!ect on &+,, acres of land in amnagar district$he labour colonies had been built up for 1,),,,labourers and other constructions ere ell under
ay (t has also claimed that for the purposes of thepro!ect the appellant has obtained finances interalia from (2() (4(4() nationalised banCs) (F4() L(4and 8(4B
1+% $he Ape? 4ourt further noted that on ,&11#,,,) the
appellant rote to the State 8overnment that since all clearances
had been received) it should be permitted to set up its pro!ect
9oever) the 4onservator of Forests rote to letters dated
#,11#,,, and %,11#,,, to the appellant stating that the
appellant had not been granted approval under the Wild Life
Protection; Act as had been found by the 9igh 4ourt in the
impugned decision $he Ape? 4ourt also observed < $he 9igh
4ourt erred in re!ecting the application for revie (t as an
opportunity for the 9igh 4ourt to rectify the error made earlier in
deciding against the appellant ithout hearing it We are also
handicapped by the absence of any discussion by the 9igh 4ourt on
the factual controversy in the appellantEs case $his has resulted in
an unnecessarily arduous e?ercise and an entirely avoidable delayB
$he Ape? 4ourt also observed that it as clear from the
evidence on record that the State 8overnment and the appellant
petitioner 4ompany herein; had taCen precautions after consulting
e?perts to see that the pipeline route causes minimal and reversible
damage to the ildlife and that the permissions given by the
4entral 8overnment under the F4A and 5PA ere on the basis of
the laying of the pipeline as proposed $here as no challenge to
these permissions and a change in the layout ould set these
permission at naught $he Ape? 4ourt also observed that the 9igh
4ourt erred in re!ecting the reports of the e?perts ho had opined
in favour of harat 3man Refineries Ltd and the appellant the
present petitioner;
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
23/29
SCA/24233/2007 23 JUDGMENT
1> When this 4ourt as hearing and finally disposing of
the Public (nterest Litigation challenging the permission granted by
the State 8overnment under the Wild Life Protection; Act toharat 3man Refineries Ltd for laying don the pipeline in -arine
/ational ParC H Sanctuary area) this 4ourt granted permanent
in!unction adversely affecting the present petitioner 4ompany
hich as not a party to the petition $he State 8overnment gave
an impression that the case of 5ssar 3il Ltd ie the present
petitioner 4ompany; as still pending and it as for this reason
that this 4ourt said 5nough is 5noughB 9ad the attention of this4ourt been invited to the State 8overnment permission dated
1>1,1**J in favour of 5ssar 3il Ltd and also the approval granted
by the 4entral 8overnment on #J111**J and ,I1#1***) this
4ourt ould not have treated the petitioner 4ompanyEs case as a
case of pending application !ust as this 4ourt did not restrain
harat 3man Refineries Ltd from laying don the pipeline (n case
this 4ourt had been informed by the State 8overnment that thepermission had already been granted to the present petitioner
4ompany) this 4ourt ould have not issued any direction to the
State 8overnment not to grant permission in any other case ie
5ssar 3il Ltd and another 4ompany hich ere the only to cases
shon to the 4ourt as pending cases When the present petitioner
4ompany moved revie application) this 4ourt re!ected that
application as beyond the scope of revie) and the Ape? 4ourt
observed that the 9igh 4ourt re!ected the opportunity of rectifying
the error We are) therefore) of the vie that the test laid don by
the Ape? 4ourt for attracting applicability of the principle of
restitution is reasonably satisfied in the facts of the present case (t
as on account of the above relevant facts not having been brought
to the notice of the 2ivision ench of this 4ourt that resulted into
the petitioner 4ompany being restrained by this 4ourt from laying
don any pipeline in the -arine /ational ParC H Sanctuary area
notithstanding the permission hich as already granted by the
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
24/29
SCA/24233/2007 24 JUDGMENT
State 8overnment under the Wild Life Protection; Act as far bacC
as on 1>1,1**J and the permissions granted by the 4entral
8overnment on #J111**J and ,I1#1*** We are) therefore) of
the vie that the petitioner has made out a case for invoCing the
doctrine of restitution for the purpose of availing of the benefit of
the incentives under the State 8overnment 4apital (nvestment
(ncentive Premier Prestigious 7nit Scheme) 1**+@#,,,) more
particularly) for the purpose of considering the 'uestion hether
the petitioner had commenced commercial production ithin the
stipulated time limit
1J Similarly) in areilly 2evelopment Authority 0s
-ethodist 4hurch of (ndia) 1*II; Supp S44 1J&) the respondent @
-ethodist 4hurch of (ndia as granted permission on 11111*I%
to complete the construction of a -edical 4ollege and -ission
9ospital ithin a period of three years) sub!ect to various
conditions @ one of them as to complete the orC of construction
ithin a period of three years ith effect from 11111*I% 3n#&,11*I&) the 2evelopment Authority passed a contrary order
re!ecting the building plan on certain grounds As there ere to
conflicting orders) the respondent tooC up the matter ith the State
8overnment hich remitted the matter to the 2evelopment
Authority for consideration afresh and the 2evelopment Authority
thereafter tooC a fresh decision on %,,+1*I+ to the effect that
approval and permission granted on 11111*I% ould standrestored and accordingly) the subse'uent order dated #&,11*I&
rescinding permission be treated as ineffective $hereafter) the
2evelopment Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order
dated 1*,J1*IJ directing the demolition of the structure on the
ground that the construction had not been completed ithin the
prescribed period $he 9igh 4ourt) therefore) held that in
computation of the period of three years for completion of the
proposed building) the period during hich the orC of
construction had been stopped #&,11*I& to %,,+1*I+; had to
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
25/29
SCA/24233/2007 25 JUDGMENT
be e?cluded $he appeal filed by the 2evelopment Authority came
to be dismissed by the Ape? 4ourt $he other issues raised in that
matter are not relevant for the purposes of the present petition
$he fact remains that the Ape? 4ourt confirmed the decision of the
9igh 4ourt taCing the vie that the period during hich the orC
of construction had been stopped) had to be e?cluded (n the facts
of the present case also) the State 8overnment had granted the
permission on 1>1,1**J and the 4entral 8overnment had granted
the permission on ,I1#1*** $he very fact that the 4hief Wild
Life Warden issued the permission on #J,##,,& after the decision
of the Ape? 4ourt on 1*,1#,,& is itself sufficient to sho that the
re'uest made by the petitioner for e?cluding the intervening period
beteen 1%th ulyH%rd August) #,,, and #J,##,,& is reasonable
1I At this stage) e may refer to one ob!ection raised by
the learned Advocate 8eneral (t as vehemently submitted that if
the period from 1%,J#,,, to #J,##,,& is e?cluded as re'uested
for by the petitioner) it ould not only have the effect of e?tendingthe period ithin hich the commercial production as re'uired to
be commenced) but it ould also pro
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
26/29
SCA/24233/2007 26 JUDGMENT
advantage of deferment and therefore) the petitioner may not get
the benefit of deferment even upto 1&,I#,#,) but hatever may
be the actual position) under no circumstances) the petitioner ill
claim any deferment benefit beyond 1&,I#,#,
#, Apropos the submission of the learned Advocate
8eneral that the State 8overnment is no providing infrastructure
facilities in the bacCard areas also) -r /anavati has submitted
that hen the petitioner made heavy investments for the pro!ect in
0adinar) it as a bacCard area and the petitioner had to provide
all the infrastructure facilities liCe roads) ater and electricity onits on and) therefore) merely because the infrastructure facilities
are no being provided by the State 8overnment to set up
industries in the ersthile bacCard areas) that cannot be held out
as a ground against the petitioner to reduce the 'uantum of
incentives payable to the petitioner under the (ncentive Scheme
Without pre!udice to the above submission) -r /anavati
states that although the petitioner is entitled to get the full benefits
under the (ncentive Scheme ie 1#+G of the eligible capital
investment) the petitioner is ready to maCe the folloing
concessions if the State 8overnment does not challenge the
decision of this 4ourt and ithin one month from today the State
8overnment grants the petitioner the benefit of sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
27/29
SCA/24233/2007 27 JUDGMENT
amount otherise computable at 1#+G of the eligible capital
investment made by the petitioner in the unit under
consideration
For maCing the above concessions) -r /anavati has relied on
the affidavit dated 1+&#,,I of the Sr 0ice President @ 4orporate @
Legal of the petitioner 4ompany
#1 (n response to the above suggestions) -r .amal $rivedi)
learned Advocate 8eneral has submitted that hile the petitioner
should not be refunded the sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
28/29
SCA/24233/2007 28 JUDGMENT
8overnment shall stipulate the folloing conditions) provided the
final eligibility certificate is issued ithin one month from the date
of receipt of the !udgment :<
i; $he petitioner shall not be given the benefit of deferment of
Sales
-
8/9/2019 Essar Oil v State of Gujarat
29/29
SCA/24233/2007 29 JUDGMENT
revie application in #,,,) this 4ourt did not avail of the
opportunity for rectifying the error made by this 4ourt earlier in
deciding against petitioner < 5ssar 3il Ltd ithout hearing it
#& $he petition is alloed in the aforesaid terms Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid e?tent ith no order as to costs
K-S S9A9)
KRA0( R $R(PA$9()
mrpandyaQHsundar