1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court against an order dated 18.4.2007 issued by the respondent no.2, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, whereby the allotment of land and lease deed were cancelled and the amount deposited by him has been forfeited in exercise of power under Section 6(2) clause (a) and (b) of Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act.

3. The ground of cancellation was that the petitioner had not indulged in carrying out the manufacturing activity in the premises for which the plot was allotted and had violated the lease conditions by letting out the premises.

4. When the matter was taken up earlier on 14.5.2007 an interim order was passed to the effect that the respondents shall not take any coercive measure to dispossess the petitioner. The matter remaining pending thereafter for some time. On 5th November, 2012 when the matter was taken up, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit making averment that the factory is being revived by use of new technology for casting purposes. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the whole purpose and object of allotment of plot in an industrial area is to encourage the unit for industrialization. The petitioner is bona fide interested in using the premises for industrial purposes and is in the process of doing so. The respondents would not be justified in evicting him and allotting the same land to another interested unit for establishing a fresh industry.

5. Counsel for respondent AIADA was allowed time to file response to the said affidavit and they filed a reply on the basis of inspection carried out in the premises of the petitioner's unit in question. Though an inspection report was filed on affidavit on behalf of the respondent AIADA, but it was, however, not correct on account of certain misconception about the unit in question. Further inspection was carried out in the petitioner's unit by a team constituted by the Secretary AIADA upon instruction of the Managing Director. The inspection report of the Member Committee filed on behalf of the AIADA by another affidavit is in the following terms:

“As instructed by MD, the unit M/s. Telcom Casting (P) Ltd. situated at plot no. A/3, Near Industrial Estate, Industrial Area Adityapur was again inspected on 20.02.2013.

M/s. Telcom Casting (P) Ltd. was allotted the plot A-03 having a total area of 46200 sft. in two different orders. The 1st order was issued vide order no. 1197 dt. 19.04.1976 for 30000 sft. & 2nd order issued vide order no. 3228 dt. 19.10.1985 for 16200 sft.

As the unit failed to state the production & rented the premise, the plot allotted were cancelled vide MD order no. 989 dt. 18.04.2007.

The case was heard before Hon'ble High Court on 08/05.11.2012. Hon'ble Court to file an affidavit after necessary inspection on the basis of the petition statement that factory is going to start on 18.11.2012.

MD advised to get the unit inspected by a committee & to inspect the unit. Secretary AIADA approved a committee consisting of:

(a) Sri J.K.Singh - CI

(b) Sri Manoj Kumar Singh - IEO

(c) Sri R.K.Sinha - TC

(d) Sri Suresh Walter Peter Tirky-IEO

During the inspection on 20.02.2013 the unit was found running & further infrastructure have been constructed. Fabrication work was also found being done. One Electric panel of 50 KW with one no. of furnace was found in operation. Electric connection has been taken from JSEB. There is a load sanction of 70 KW & 50 KW respectively for Electric panel & furnace. There is a Generator set of 125 K.V.A. There were 10 no. of labourers found working. The casted materials were stacked in store & it was more in quantity than the last visit. Unit was asked to give the photocopy of Tax invoice/Bills. They have given 13 nos. of Tax invoice which is from 15.12.2012 to 28.02.2012.

Submitted the report.”

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner s