Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through ... vs M/S Bebbco Motors Private Limited on 18 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 444 of 2022
The State of Jharkhand through Smt. Vandana Dadel, W/o Sri Sanjay I.
Bara, The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S.: Dhurwa, District:
Ranchi ............. Appellant/Respondent No.1
Versus
1. M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 having its works at Plot No. 13 & 14, VIth Phase,
Adityapur Industrial Area, Main Road, Gamharia, P.O.: Adityapur, District:
Saraikella-Kharsawan through its Director Krishna Bhalotia, S/o
Sri Gajanand Bhalotia, resident of 43, C.H. Area (New), P.O.: Sonari, P.S.:
Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District: Singhbhum (East)
..........Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Main Road,
Adityapur, P.O.: and P.S- Adityapur, District: Saraikella-Kharsawan
3. The Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development
Authority, Main Road, Adityapur, P.O.& P.-Adityapur, District: Saraikella-
Kharsawan ...... Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 461 of 2022
M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its works at Plot No. 13 & 14, VIth Phase, Adityapur
Industrial Area, Main Road, Gamharia, P.O.: Adityapur, District: Saraikella-
Kharsawan through its Director Krishna Bhalotia, aged about 48 years,
S/o Sri Gajanand Bhalotia, resident of 43, C.H. Area (North West), P.O.:
Sonari, P.S.: Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum, PIN-831001
..........Petitioner/ Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Main Road, P.O.
and P.S- Adityapur, District: Saraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) represented
through its Managing Director
3. The Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development
Authority, Main Road, Adityapur, P.O.& P.S-Adityapur, District: Saraikella-
Kharsawan (Jharkhand) ...... Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 466 of 2022
1. Adityapur Industrial Development Authority, Adityapur, PO & PS-
Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, represented through its Managing
Director, now Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development
Authority, Adityapur Region, Prem Ranjan, aged about 48 years, having its
office at Vikash Bhawan, PO & PS-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-
Kharsawan
2 L.P.A No.444 of 2022 & analogous cases
2. Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Development Authority, Main
Road, Adityapur, PO & PS-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, now
through its Reginal Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development
Authority, Adityapur Region ,Prem Ranjan, aged about 48 years, having its
office at Vikash Bhawan, PO & PS-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-
Kharsawan ..........Respondent Nos.2 & 3/ Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand ........Respondent No.1
2. M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its works at Plot No. 13 & 14, VIth Phase, Adityapur
Industrial Area, Main Road, Gamharia, P.O & PS.: Adityapur, District:
Saraikella-Kharsawan represented through its Director Krishna Bhalotia,
S/o Sri Gajanand Bhalotia, resident of 43, C.H. Area, North West, P.O.:
Sonari, P.S.: Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum
......Petitioner/ Respondent No.2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V
(in all cases)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. R.C.P Sah, Advocate
Mr. C.A Bardhan, Advocate
(in L.P.A No. 466/2022)
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
( in L.P.A. No. 461/2022)
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. R.C.P Sah, Advocate
Mr. C.A Bardhan, Advocate
(in L.P.A. Nos. 444/2022 & 461/2022)
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
(in L.P.A. Nos. 444/2022 & 466/2022)
--------------
ORDER
18th August 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Against the order dated 22nd September 2022 passed in W.P (C)
No.3790 of 2009, three separate Letters Patent Appeals vide L.P.A No.444
of 2022, L.P.A No.461 of 2022 and L.P.A No.466 of 2022 have been filed.
2. M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited which is the writ petitioner
was aggrieved of the order dated 25th May 2009 passed by the Managing
Director of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (in short,
"AIADA") by which a demand of Rs.51,17,232/- was made for
commercial use of the land with a further direction to deposit annual rent
@ 0.5% of the cost of land.
3. The writ Court having noticed the rival contentions came to a
finding that the AIADA was not authorized to resolve to charge
commercial rate which reflected on the functioning, integrity and conduct
of its officers. Now looking at the writ Court's order, what strikes the
mind of the Court is whether any such prayer was made in the writ
petition and whether the scope of the reliefs sought by M/s Bebbco
Motors Private Limited would include such an enquiry as contemplated
and ordered by the writ Court. In fact, a simple issue in law regarding
demand of Rs.51,17,232/- was canvassed by M/s Bebbco Motors Private
Limited on the ground: whether without affording sufficient opportunity
of hearing to it a demand for Rs.51,17,232/- could have been raised with
a further direction to make payment within 15 days?
4. This is a requirement of the rules of natural justice and really
the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court need not
make adverse comments about the conduct of the government official(s)
least to say about the integrity of the officer(s). On a glance at the order
dated 22nd September 2022, we find that the writ Court has made
sweeping observations against the officers of AIADA and the
Government of Jharkhand. The writ Court has gone one step further and
issued a direction for registration of a First Information Report and
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
5. Noticing the aforesaid directions of the writ Court a
co-ordinate Bench has stayed the impugned directions by an order dated
29th September 2022.
6. The order dated 29th September 2022 reads as under:
"The matter was taken up by the coordinate Bench presided over
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice yesterday and posted for today. Since
the learned Division Bench-I is not available today, the matter has
been mentioned before this Bench in view of the notice of the same
date i.e. 29th September, 2022.
2. Learned Advocate General submits that the surviving defects
have been removed pursuant to the liberty granted by order dated
28th September, 2022.
3. I.A. No.9157 of 2022 has been filed for seeking exemption from
filing certified copy of the impugned order, which has not yet been
made available. Instead the web copy has been brought on record.
It is submitted by the appellant-State that the same may be allowed
since there is an urgency in the matter in view of certain directions
against the State issued by the learned writ court in the impugned
judgment.
Accordingly, prayer for exemption from filing certified copy of the
impugned order is allowed. I.A. is disposed of.
4. Learned Advocate General submits that the learned writ court,
vide impugned judgment has made serious indictments against the
State and also in relation to its Body i.e. Anti Corruption Bureau,
without any justifiable basis. The writ petition was directed against
the notice dated 25th May, 2009, issued by Adityapur Industrial
Area Development Authority (AIADA) upon the writ petitioner to
deposit Rs. 51,17,232/- towards the cost of land used on
commercial basis and further annual rent at the rate of 0.5 % of the
cost of land. The writ petition was also directed against the notice
of sealing upon the writ petitioner dated 4th June, 2008. The writ
petitioner raised grievances connected with the AIADA, which
functions under Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority
Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. However, in midst of
the proceedings by order dated 14.06.2022, the Secretary,
Industries Department was directed to answer to certain queries,
which were not specific to the case of the writ petitioner but in
general relating to the functioning of AIADA, the manner of
allotment of plots, the names of the incumbent Managing Director
and other officers, who had served AIADA period-wise and if they
had failed to take corrective actions, why suitable legal action was
not taken against them and the Managing Director posted at the
relevant time by the Secretary, Industries in accordance with law.
The Secretary, Industries Department was also asked to indicate as
to how many plots were used by actual allottees or fictitious
persons under collusive agreement. The Secretary, Industries was
not made a party in the writ proceedings till the disposal of the writ
petition. However, in deference to the direction issued by the court,
the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries-Mrs. Vandana
Dadel, who had joined on 31.5.2022, did file an affidavit dated 11th
July, 2022 giving answers to the queries of the court in the best
possible manner and as true to her knowledge and information
derived from relevant records. It is submitted that though the writ
petition was dismissed but learned writ court has, without any
justification, rendered findings which are damaging in nature to the
State Government as a whole and the functioning of the bodies like
Anti Corruption Bureau, which looks into the instances of
corruption. The learned writ court has, without any opportunity to
the State, straightaway directed the C.B.I. to institute an F.I.R. and
conduct enquiry in the matter soon after the receipt of copy of the
order. Apart from that, specific direction has been issued to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to initiate proceeding
against the Secretary, Department of Industries-Ms. Vandana Dadel
on the charges of suppression of facts and misleading the court.
The learned writ court has rendered the finding against the officer
who was not even posted as the Managing Director, AIADA since
April, 2007 till date. The observations of the learned writ court
against the Secretary, Industries Department, who was not a party
in the writ petition are wholly uncalled for, more so when the
action impugned in the writ petition relates to the period 2009
which is again based upon the resolution of the 90th meeting of the
Board of AIADA held on 24.12.2008, chaired by the then
Secretary, Industries-cum-Chairman and another officer in the
capacity of Managing Director, AIADA. He submitted that the
observations made by the learned writ court regarding the
functioning of the State department and the operative directions to
institute a C.B.I. case straightaway without any notice or
opportunity to the State to respond to it were wholly uncalled for.
Since the impugned direction concerning the State and its officials
impinge upon the credibility of the government, the appellant State
has moved this court for interim stay of the impugned direction so
far as it relates to the State Government and its official through I.A.
No. 9156 of 2022. Learned Advocate General submits that the main
issue involved in the writ petition is between the writ petitioner and
the AIADA which may take its on course. However, if interim
protection is not granted to the appellant State and its officials,
irreparable damage may be caused.
5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appears for the AIADA.
6. Let notice be issued upon the Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1
under registered cover with A/D and speed post, for which
requisites etc. be filed by 12th October, 2022. Notice be also
effected through Dasti by the appellant upon Respondent No.1 by
10th October, 2022 with copy of the order of this court and affidavit
shall be filed to that effect by 12th October, 2022.
7. Matter be listed on 18th October, 2022 before the appropriate
Bench.
8. In the meantime, the impugned directions upon the Central
Bureau of investigation and upon the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, at page 16 of the impugned judgment, shall remain
stayed."
7. This issue that an administrative/quasi-judicial authority
while exercising a statutory power must follow the rules of natural justice
cannot be disputed. Indeed, this is the minimum requirement in law that
the authority should afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
noticee.
8. In "Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE" (2015) 8 SCC 519 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"28. It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the
fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram
partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have
consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered
to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the
quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made
ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is
likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be
instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to
pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an
individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior
hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability
of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory
provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective
of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or
not."
9. The enquiry conducted in the writ proceeding and the
directions issued by the writ Court cannot be countenanced in law and,
accordingly, the observations and directions particularly against the
Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand
must be erased from the records.
10. W.P.(C) No.3790 of 2009 is allowed to the extent that within
four weeks a notice shall be issued to M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited
providing it an opportunity to submit its representation with documents, if
any, and if asked for by M/s Bebbco Motors Private Limited personal
hearing shall be afforded by the Regional Director, AIADA.
11. L.P.A No.444 of 2022, L.P.A No.461 of 2022 and L.P.A No.466
of 2022 are allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
12. I.A No.9196 of 2022 for filing additional documents in L.P.A
No.444 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 18th August 2023
Sudhir/NAFR
