Back
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR
Civmill Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority – Respondent
S. KUMAR, J.:–I.A. Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed on behalf of petitioner are allowed and shall form part of this writ petition.
C.W.J.C. No.7160 of 2020:
2. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:—
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order as contained under Letter No.1606/D dated 06.06.2020, whereby and wherunder the representation dated 19.03.2020 submitted by petitioner along with project report has been rejected on nonest ground and without affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to it.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to move on with the project in the industrial interest of the State of Bihar.
(iii) For declaration that the impugned order of rejection dated 06.06.2020 takes away the fundamental right of petitioner to establish industry as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(iv) For quashing of notice dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ application) published by BIADA in local dailies to comply the directions given in the said no
The court upheld the cancellation of land allotment due to the petitioner's non-utilization for over twenty years, reinforcing authority's jurisdiction under the BIADA Act, 1974 and its amendments.
Existing units commencing production before new industrial policy but not availing prior incentives eligible under amended transitional Clause 8(b); prior clearances create vested rights invoking pro....
The judgment establishes that rejection of a proposal must be justified and in compliance with legal principles, and violation of natural justice can lead to the reversal of such decisions.
Failure to utilize allocated industrial land justifies its cancellation under statutory provisions.
A binding contract came into existence between the petitioner and the DSIIDC upon issuance of the allotment letter, and the DSIIDC could not unilaterally cancel the allotment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
