Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
Sarva Sri Maa Tara Jaivik Udyog Purnea - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2198 of 2019
Decided On : 20-02-2020
Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate, Rajiv Roy, Advocate
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of an allotment letter, leading to the cancellation of the allotment and legal consequences.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Allotment - Industrial Plot - BIADA Amendment Act, 1991, Section 62(a) and 62(b) - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 12.02.2008, highlighting the clauses related to the commencement of industrial activity, consequences of non-compliance, and the authority's power to cancel the allotment. The court emphasized the petitioner's failure to initiate industrial activity within the stipulated time frame, leading to the cancellation of the allotment and the subsequent legal consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order cancelling the allotment of an industrial plot due to the petitioner's failure to initiate industrial activity within the stipulated time frame.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, leading to the cancellation of the plot. The court also noted the petitioner's prolonged failure to initiate industrial activity, resulting in loss to the state exchequer and infringement of the rights of other affected individuals.
Issues: Non-compliance with terms of allotment, failure to initiate industrial activity within stipulated time frame, and the authority's power to cancel the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to initiate industrial activity within the stipulated time frame and the prolonged non-compliance with the terms of allotment justified the cancellation of the plot.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no infirmity in the order cancelling the plot and the subsequent appellate order.
JUDGMENT
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by the Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "BIADA") Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder allotment of the plot made to the petitioner, bearing plot no. 11 (P), admeasuring an area of 10,000 Sq.ft., situated at BIADA Regional Area, Bhagalpur has been cancelled.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that it was invited by the Industries Department, Government of Bihar for opening an industry at Purnea stating that BIADA was working for the development of the said area and for that purpose it was allotting plots of land for establishing industry in the Purnea town. The petitioner is stated to have applied for allotment of a plot whereafter, BIADA had allotted a piece of land on 28.09.2008 which had a boundary wall and two asbestos rooms and a big asbestos shed. The said big asbestos shed is stated to have been wrecked on account of storm whereupon the petitioner is stated to have written a letter dated 17.03.2008 to the respondent-authorities to repair the same so that he could start his industry. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the plot allotted to the petitioner was not proper for a Jaivik Udyog, the petitioner decided to change his business. The petitioner had then given an application dated 19.09.2013 for change of his business/ project, however, in the meantime, the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Development Officer, BIADA, Bhagalpur had given a notice dated 16.05.2013 to the petitioner informing that the outstanding dues as against him stood at a sum of Rs. 41,497/-. Since the respondent authorities did not respond in the matter of granting permission to the petitioner regarding change of the project/ industry, the petitioner had again written to the respondent authorities on 01.09.2014 for change of the project, however instead the allotment of the plot of the petitioner was cancelled by an order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the Managing Director, BIADA, Patna and the amount deposited by the petitioner was directed to be forfeited. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2015 before the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna on 25.11.2015, however the said appeal has been rejected and communication to the said effect has been sent to the petitioner herein by the Executive Director, BIADA, Bhagalpur. The petitioner had also challenged the orders dated 09.05.2018/ 22.05.2018, passed by the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna in Appeal no. 36 of 2015, however, the appeal has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was seriously ill, he could not establish any industry in the land/ plot in question, allotted by the respondent-BIADA, hence a humanitarian view is required to be taken. It is further submitted that the respondentauthorities are also at fault inasmuch as the plot in question, allotted to the petitioner, was not suitable for his initial project pertaining to Jaivik Udyog, as such the petitioner had applied for change of his business/ project, nonetheless the respondentauthorities had not taken any decision one way or the other resulting in gross prejudice to the petitioner as also resulting in the petitioner being not able to establish any industry. It is further submitted that the impugned orders dated 09.05.2018/ 22.05.2018 are also bad, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been granted proper opportunity of hearing.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BIADA has submitted at the outset, that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed out-rightly on account of suppression of actual facts and for misleading this Court. It is submitted that the actual facts are that on an application submitted by the petitioner, the respon
