The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Gujarat High Court in the dispute between Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZL) and Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) which favoured Adani Ports SEZ. The division bench stated that the observations made by the Gujarat High Court were "totally unwarranted”. The Court also held that the Division Bench had not taken care of the interest of all the stake holders.

The bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar also ordered that the “petition be remitted back to the learned Single Judge of the High Court for consideration afresh, to be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of this judgment."

Noting the facts, the Gujarat High Court allowed APSEZL (Adani Ports Special Economic Zone) to acquire 34 acres of land adjacent to Mundra Port in Gujarat in case the CWC fails to acquire authorisation or approval of its warehousing facility as an SEZ-complainant unit within three months.

The Supreme Court observed that if the matter is pertaining to an issue relating to a dispute between a private and public entity, the approach of the High Court needs to be balanced. Further, the court also noted that the high court should also have taken into consideration the conditions complied with by the authority. "We find the said observations of the Division Bench totally unwarranted. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant-CWC was a statutory body. There are already observations made by the CVC as early as in the year 2010 that the swapping of the warehousing facility from the present site to a changed site would cause serious financial implications and also that there could be various vested interests involved. The CVC had also observed that there was also a possibility of losing business. Further, the Division Bench totally ignored the stand taken by the Ministry of CAF&PD, which too had opposed such a swapping. Rather than the High Court being surprised with the conduct of the appellant-CWC, it is we who are surprised with the observations made by the High Court. When an issue involved the balancing of interests of a statutory Corporation and a private company, the approach of the High Court ought to have been a balanced one. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration that, unless all the three conditions were complied with, the interest of the appellant-CWC, which is a statutory Corporation, could not have been safeguarded. If a settlement was to be arrived at, unless the same was found to be in the interest of both the parties, it could not have been thrust upon a statutory Corporation to its detriment and to the advantage of a private entity."

Case Details:

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7277-7278 OF 2022
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ADANI PORTS SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED (APSEZL) AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

Read the complete Judgment on the following link

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/21171/21171_2021_12_1501_38876_Judgement_13-Oct-2022.pdf