2026 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. – Appellants
VS.
M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2020
With
State of Bihar – Appellant
VS.
M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 930 of 2020
Decided On : 23-01-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cancellation of allotment of Industrial Plot – Cancellation of allotment While rights of individual allottee merit due respect and consideration, it cannot be placed on a pedestal higher than collective public interest – Where two come into conflict, individual interest must necessarily yield to larger public good.
(2) Judicial discipline demands due deference to exercise of discretion by court of first instance, particularly when such discretion was exercised on relevant considerations – Intra-court appellate Bench ought not to substitute its own view, merely because such Bench considers its view to be better than the one taken by Single Bench.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Parameters – Remedy of a writ is discretionary in nature – Even where a writ petition raises a substantial point of law, High Court may decline to entertain it for a variety of reasons – Relief may be denied to suitor notwithstanding existence of a strong legal case should grant of such relief not serve or advance public interest – If interfering with impugned order/decision would result in more harm to society, writ courts may decline to exercise its jurisdiction – High Courts, being custodian of Constitution, carry responsibility to maintain social balance by its interference when justice of case so demands and in not interfering when such interference would affect public interest – Both Single Bench and Division Bench exercise same jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution – Exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is warranted only where judgment or order under challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from perversity – Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked merely because another view is possible on same set of facts, particularly where view adopted by Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one. (Paras 11 and 13)

(B) Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 – Section 9(3) – Industrial Plot – Cancellation of allotment – Reversal by Division Bench of High Court – Cancellation of allotment of plot in question was necessitated by requirement of land for setting up and future expansion of institute like IIT, a circumstance which was neither contemplated nor known at the time of original allotment – Decision of BIADA to cancel allotment was taken bona fide and in furtherance of a larger public purpose – BIADA, to demonstrate its bona fide, also offered to allottee an alternate piece of land, which it declined – There is no material on record which suggests that BIADA’s action is infected by any malice in fact – Institutes such as IITs not only cater to a large number of students but also play a critical role in development of individuals, society and nation at large – While rights of individual allottee merit due respect and consideration, it cannot be placed on a pedestal higher than collective public interest – Where two come into conflict, individual interest must necessarily yield to larger public good – Judicial discipline demanded due deference to exercise of discretion by court of first instance, particularly when such discretion was exercised on relevant considerations – Single Judge having refused exercise of discretion on a ground which is valid, Division Bench ought to have been loath to allow writ petition, in exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction – Impugned order of Division Bench set aside and that of Single Judge restored. (Paras 15.1, 15.2, 16, 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority [BIADA] and State of Bihar are in appeal, by special leave, challenging judgment and order dated 21st October 2014 [impugned order] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna [High Court] on an intra-court appeal [Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2014] presented by first respondent [M/s. Scope]. Division Bench reversed Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 24th January 2014 of dismissal of M/s. Scope’s writ petition [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4532 of 2009] and consequently, allowed writ petition of M/s. Scope.

Sole issue before Court is, whether Division Bench of High Court was right in its interference with order of dismissal of writ petition of M/s. Scope passed by Single Judge?

Findings of Court:

Plot in question shall not be put to any commercial use whatsoever by any of appellants and shall be utilized strictly and exclusively for educational purposes and activities incidental thereto.

Result : Appeals allowed.