AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, the Petitioners have sought following reliefs:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to perform their statutory duties and to adhere to their own site plan while constructing the approach road and further be directed to extend the approach road upto the plot No. 3 (rear side Unit No. 2 i.e. the unit of the Petitioners) in accordance with their own site plan;
Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling upon the Respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the allotment of plot No. 6 and 7A in favour of Respondent No. 3 and quash and set aside the aforesaid allotment of land to the extent the same is falling in "approach road" beneath the High Tension Wire and Green Belt as shown as "A", "B" and "C" in the site plan of Respondent No. 2.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, thereby prohibiting the Respondent No. 3, their agents, servants, employees, labourers from raising construction over the land means fro "approach road" and falling in the "High Tension Wire and Green Belt Area" which is meant for public utilities;
Award the costs of these proceedings in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents;
and further issue any other appropriate writs, orders or directions as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice.
Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition are that Petitioners were duly allotted industrial land at plot No. 3, Sector No. 11, SIDCUL, Haridwar, by Respondent No. 2 for carrying on the business of manufacturing PD/HDPE woven/non-woven products and other allied activities incidental thereto. Thereafter, the Petitioners established their industry at the said allotted land in the rear portion of their factory and have been carrying on their business and trade since then. It is further stated in the petition that Petitioners'' entire ingress and egress of plying of trucks and material operates from the back door of the factory. In para-7 of the writ petition, it is stated that upon the representation of the group of industries, including the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 agreed to construct an approach road for the purpose of their smooth plying of materials. Representation (annexure-4 to the writ petition) to this effect has already been made on 18.02.2010 to Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioners but till date no decision has been taken by the Respondent authority.
During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for Petitioners made a prayer that direction be given to Respondent No. 2 to take decision on the representation of the Petitioners. The prayer made is innocuous in nature.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition be disposed of. The writ petition is disposed of finally directing Respondent No. 2 -SIDCUL to pass appropriate speaking orders on the representation dated 18.02.2010, made by the Petitioners, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.