w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bharat C. Vyas v/s State of Jharkhand & Others

    W.P.(C) No. 2047 of 2010

    Decided On, 08 December 2021

    At, High Court of Jharkhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

    For the Petitioner: Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Manish Mishra, G.P.-V, C.A. Vardhan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has preferred the writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.03.2010, passed by Secretary, Industries, Government of Jharkhand passed in appeal affirming the order dated 04.07.2009, passed by Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur, Jamshedpur contained in Memo No.1052/A.D.A. whereby the land allotment order Nos.10806 and 16699 dated 28.06.1968 and 15.09.1970 respectively (wrongly typed as 1980) have been cancelled and the security money has been confiscated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against order dated 04.07.2009, passed by the Managing Director, AIADA contained in Memo No.1052/A.D.A. whereby the land allotment order Nos.10806 and 16699 dated 28.06.1968 and 15.09.1970 respectively have been cancelled and security money has been confiscated and the said order has been affirmed by the Secretary, Industries vide order dated 29.03.2010 contained in Appeal No.07/2009-97/Ranchi dated 17.04.2010, on the ground that these impugned orders have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, on extraneous ground and malice in the mind of the Managing Director as the petitioner has not appeared earlier in the proceeding on 26.06.2009 and 04.07.2009, as such, the impugned order may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent- AIADA, Mr. C.A. Vardhan has opposed the prayer and submitted that detail counter-affidavit has been filed by AIADA on 27.08.2010 stating therein that on 28.06.1968 and 15.09.1970 Plot No.A-31, situated in Phase-1 was allotted to the partnership firm of M/s. Chhotalal G. Vyas & Sons having an area of 45,000 sq. ft. and 28,125 sq. ft. (total comes to area 73,125 sq. ft.), later changed in Bharat Engineering & Refractory Industries (as per order of respondent nos.2 & 3 vide letter no. 399 dated 31.01.1974). The firm consist of Chhotalal G. Vyas, Pramod Kumar Vyas, Gagan Vihari Vyas, Jamdagni Vyas and Harsh Kumar Vyas as partners. Subsequently on 23.12.1977 deed of dissolution of partnership was filed in which the name of one of the partner, Pramod Kuamr Vyas was removed with effect from 31.12.1976. Later on 31.03.1984, another deed of dissolution of partnership was filed in which name of another partner, Gagan Bihari Vyas was removed, again on 31.07.1986 by another deed of dissolution of partnership another partner, Jamdagni Vyas was removed and on 09.03.1990 another partner, Harsh Kumar Vyas was removed. It is further submitted that in the last deed from 01.04.1992, Sudarshan Mahto was taken as a partner of the firm but on 10.03.1993 the said partner, Sudarshan Mahto was removed.

The first partnership deed was approved by respondent nos.2 and 3 vide Letter No.397/ADA, dated 30.01.1974, but subsequent partnership deed was not approved by respondent as no prior permission was sought for change in the constitution of firm, which is clear violation of clause-i of land allotment order as well as lease deed of the unit.

The unit was closed for several years, the first show-cause notice was issued on 31.10.1998 vide letter No.1368, second show-cause notice was issued on 21.07.1999 vide Letter No.805 and last show-cause notice was issued on 23.10.1999 vide Letter No.1290. Further vide Letter No.508 dated 09.04.2001, a notice was issued for hearing in the matter, but situation did not change, later on 22.06.2009 vide Letter No.977/ADA was issued to the petitioner firm to be present on 26.06.2009 another notice was issued on 29.06.2009, vide Letter No.1022/ADA to be present on 04.07.2009 meaning thereby petitioner was not interested to run the unit and tried to sale the unit which itself is the violation of terms and conditions of land allotment order as well as lease deed, so respondent nos.2 and 3 cancelled the land allotment order issued in favour of petitioner's firm vide letter No.1052 dated 04.07.2009.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that from perusal of the other writ petitions, pending before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.2052 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.2064 of 2020, it appears that the dues which has incurred of the mines department has not been cleared nor the petitioner could establish by way of filing supplementary affidavit, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.11.2021, that his Industries was running, by producing any cheat of paper to establish that he has paid charge of electrical connection for month of December, 1998 and subsequent thereto, as such, because of the violation of terms and conditions of the lease on account of non running the Industries, the AIADA has rightly cancelled the lease agreement entered between the AIADA and petitioner as reflected in Annexure- 16 contained in Memo No.1052/ADI, Adityapur dated 04.07.2009, passed by Managing Director and the same has been affirmed by the Secretary, Department of Industries, as after issuance of first show-cause notice and second show-cause notice and also after giving opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has not shown any interest, as such, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. So far extraneous ground is concerned, there is no extraneous ground as alleged by the petitioner, as the petitioner has been given opportunity by this Court on 22.11.2021 to establish that his Industries was running but he failed to produce any document before the court. So far the malice against the Managing Director is concerned, he has not stated any word, that how the Managing Director has malice in law or malice in fact, as such, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Manish Mishra has submitted that it is true that petitioner has not paid the dues of the Mining Department, as such, demand notice has been issued and both the writ petitions are pending before this Court, as such, the petitioner not being interested person in running the Industries has rightly been cancelled by the Managing Director affirmed by the Secretary of the Industries Department, as such, this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same does not require any interference on facts as well as principle of natural justice.

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, it appears that petitioner has been given ample opportunity by the department to run the Industry. The first show-cause was given, which was found to be unsatisfactory and then second show-cause was given, which was also found to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter, opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, who did not appear before the respondent-authorities. The respondent-authorities, thus are duty bound to cancel the allotment of land vide order Nos.10806 and 16699 dated 28.06.1968 and 15.09.1970 respectively, as petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

This Court cannot interfere with such finding recorded by the Managing Director, AIADA as well as the Secretary, Industries, Government of Jharkhand being the appellate authority, as no contrary material has been brought on record to establish that petitioner was running the Industries rather from the averments made in the writ petition itself, it appears that petitio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ner has one or another plea for not running the Industries and that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.2047 of 2010 stands dismissed. However, the AIADA is free to inspect all the allotments made in favour of other persons, as to whether they are also running such Industry or not? and pass such orders, if persons are not interested by making fresh allotment to the serious enterpreneurs. Further the respondent- AIADA shall put more stringent conditions with regard to the security money while alloting their land to the serious enterpreneurs, not to the fake persons, who are not interested in utilising such land and thus putting State at loss. I.A. No.5780 of 2021 and I.A. No.6425 of 2021 are hereby closed.
O R