Sravan And Co vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit. It noted that the respondents' counter-affidavits clearly indicated that the Government had allotted 111 mandals during 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 to new entrants who had applied in response to government notifications and were shortlisted. However, the petitioner had not applied in response to any such notifications but had instead submitted a representation directly to the 2nd Respondent requesting a new zone. The Court found no provision in the Andhra Pradesh Oil Palm (Regulation of Production and Processing) Act, 1993, or the Rules, 2008, that required the 2nd Respondent to forward applications for new permissions to the Government for zone allotment. The Court observed that it is the Government (1st Respondent) that allots zones. Since the Nidadavolu/Chagallu area was already allotted in 1995, the petitioner's request was not maintainable. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply in response to future notifications for factory zone allotments. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sravan And Co., a GST-registered firm, applied on September 20, 2023, to the 2nd Respondent for permission to establish a new oil palm factory in Nidadavolu/Chagallu, East Godavari District. The 2nd Respondent rejected this application on October 16, 2023. The petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd Respondent rejected the application directly instead of forwarding it to the 1st Respondent for declaration of a new factory zone, as required by Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Oil Palm Regulation of Production and Processing Act, 1993, and Rule 14 of the corresponding Rules, 2008. The respondents contended that the Nidadavolu/Chagallu area was already allotted to M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers (now M/s 3F Oil Palm Agrotech Pvt Ltd.) in 1995, and therefore, no fresh applications for this zone could be considered. The respondents also stated that the petitioner had not applied in response to any government notifications for factory zone allotment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 2nd Respondent acted arbitrarily and illegally in rejecting the petitioner's application for establishing a new oil palm factory without forwarding it to the 1st Respondent for declaration of a factory zone, in violation of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Oil Palm Regulation of Production and Processing Act, 1993, and Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Oil Palm Regulation of Production and Processing Rules, 2008, thereby infringing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd Respondent should have forwarded their application to the 1st Respondent for the declaration of a new factory zone, as per the Act and Rules, and that the direct rejection was arbitrary and illegal. They relied on Section 11 of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the Nidadavolu/Chagallu area was already notified and allotted to another company in 1995. They asserted that as per Section 11 and Rule 14, no application for a new factory can be considered unless the 1st Respondent notifies a zone. They also stated that the petitioner had not applied in response to any government notifications for factory zone allotment, and the 2nd Respondent had correctly rejected the application by passing a speaking order.