Goa's Withdrawl of SEZ Policy Challenged in Supreme Court

Goa’s Withdrawl of SEZ Policy Challenged in Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India today issued notice to Centre and State Government of Goa over dispute relating to state governments’ decision to scrap setting up of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and withdrawal of its SEZ policy.

K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd and its group company Paradigm Logistics & Distribution Pvt. Ltd have come in appeal against a judgment passed by Goa bench of Bombay High Court dated 26.11.2010. Apart from Union of India and State of Goa, anti SEZ activists John Franky Monteiro and Philip Pereira have also been made a party to the case.

Supreme Court bench of Justice Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma while issuing notices also ordered the parties to maintain status quo. The bench also decided to take up the case for hearing immediately after all parties are served and pleadings are complete. Today a line of senior advocates including Harish N. Salve, AM Singhvi and Soli Sorabjee briefed by PH Parekh appeared for the petitioner companies, senior counsel Colin Gonzalves appeared for the anti SEZ activists.

The petitioner companies were allotted land for SEZ in 2006 through Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). It is their argument that the allotments were duly notified and sanctioned as per the industrial policy of Goa which at that time encouraged setting up of SEZ’s. On 27.02.2007 the companies also got permissions to commence construction activities in which they claim to have spent nearly Rs. 190 Crores in all. However, after much public outcry and opposition in June 2008 State of Goa issued written direction to GDIC to cancel the lease of land granted to the companies.

The companies claim that State of Goa’s decision of reversal of policy does not have full cabinet approval. The petitions raise important question as to power and authority of the state government “to reverse a duly notified sanctioned policy.” The petition also raises question of law concerning the application of the principles of promissory estoppel.

Source : lawetalnews.com