Patna High Court
Uday Mohan Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16578 of 2016
======================================================
Uday Mohan Jha S/o Bhagwan Datta, R/o Mohalla- Hari Nagar, Phase-II,
Gali No. 04, P.S.- Hari Nagar, Badhapur, New Delhi, Presently R/o Village-
Nagdah, Post- Nagdah Blain, P.S.- Arer, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Patna.
3. The Regional officer, the Regional Office, BIADA, Darbhanga, District-
Darbhanga.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binit Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh-GA-3
For the BIADA : Mr. Ujjawal Bhushan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-03-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed for issuance of an
appropriate Writ or any order or direction particularly
in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Letter
dated 12.07.2016 contained in Memo No. 409, issued
under the signature of the Executive Director, Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
2/11
Industrial Area Development Authority, (hereinafter
referred to as BIADA) the 2nd -respondent was
pleased to cancel the allotment Letter dated
16.12.2014
which is alleged to arbitrary and illegal in
violation of the norms formulated by this Court in the
case of "Deepak Paints Limited and others versus the
State of Bihar and others" (CWJC No. 7352 of 2007
and analogous cases dated 17.03.2008). The
petitioner further, prays that concerned respondent
not to disturb the petitioner in installing the
proposed project of Rice Mill and Poha Mill as per the
agreement for the allotment of the land, to grant any
other equitable reliefs.
2. The brief facts culled out the Writ petition
is that the petitioner is an entrepreneur and the
Managing Director of M/s Ensol Energy Private
Limited. Following the due process, the firm of the
the petitioner was allotted 65,430 square feet land
on plot No. B-25(P) in the industrial area Donar,
Darbhanga by Letter dated 16.12.2014 for the
installation of rice and poha mill. A land possession
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
certificate was issued to him and pursuant to it, the
petitioner undertook soil work on the allotted land.
3. Adjacent to the allotted land, there was a
drainage system which obstructed the work of the
petitioner, for which the petitioner made
representations before the District Magistrate,
Darbhanga, as well as the 2 nd Respondent-BIADA
requesting to shift the drainage from the allotted plot
so as to proceed with the proposed industrial project
for installation of rice and poha mill.
4. However, the petitioner later came to
know that the allotment had been cancelled vide
Letter No. 1352 dated 12.07.2016, which also
mentioned the forfeiture of the security deposit.
Aggrieved by this, the present Writ petition was filed.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by
the respondent-BIADA denying all the allegations
made in the Writ petition. The counter affidavit
disclose that in the meeting of PCC dated
30.04.2012, M/s Mithila Rice Mill (M/s Ensol Energy
Private Limited) was conditionally allotted the plot,
for establishment of a Rice Mill and Poha Mill with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
specific condition that the unit will get approval from
the State Investment Promotional Board and only
thereafter, the allotment would be confirmed in its
favour.
6. In view of decision taken in PCC meeting
dated 30.04.2012, the BIADA issued several letters
including Letter No. 768 dated 22.05.2012, Letter No.
1485 dated 11.10.2012, Letter No. 776 dated
09.05.2013 and Letter No. 371 dated 25.03.2014
intimating the petitioner for getting approval from
the State Investment Board.
7. It is further contended that on 04.12.2013
approval from the Board was received, in favour of
the changed named of the petitioner/unit i.e. M/s
Ensol Energy Private Limited and the same was
communicated to BIADA, by a Letter dated
04.04.2014.
8. In view of the said approval, the BIADA
allotted the land to the petitioners unit vide Letter
No. 1352 dated 16.12.2014. Pursuant to the
allotment, the petitioner completed the required
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
formalities, submitted the bond letter and deposited
the first installment of the amount on 30.12.2014.
9. Further, Memo No. 125 dated 05.02.2015
order was issued relating to the physical possession.
It is further submitted that the office reminded the
petitioner to take physical possession of the land
vide Letter No. 172 dated 21.02.2015, following
which physical possession was handed over to the
petitioner's unit on 23.02.2015. Due to low progress
in establishing the industry, BIADA vide Letter No.
606 dated 16.07.2015 and Letter No. 913 dated
15.10.2015 intimated the same to the petitioner, but
there was no response. Hence BIADA issued a final
notice to the authorized director at both his
residential address and the unit's address via
registered post, vide Letter No. 118 dated
10.02.2016 which was returned undelivered. As there
is no other way for BIADA, the physical verification of
the plot was done jointly by the Assessment
Development Officer and Regional In-charge, who
submitted a report, to the authority dated
05.01.2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
10. The counter affidavit further disclose that
the petitioner unit never submitted any
application/representation before the Regional
Officer or Branch Office of BIADA, with respect to any
difficulties faced, during the establishment of the
industry.
11. Further, the matter was communicated
to the Managing Director, BIADA who after due
discussion issued an order of cancellation of the
allotment of the land in question vide Letter No. 409
dated 12.07.2016.
12. The counter affidavit further disclose that
there is a statutory provision of appeal before the
Industrial Development Commissioner (IDC) which
the petitioner failed to avail before approaching this
Court and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ
petition as it is devoid of merits.
13. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petition as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondent-BIADA. Perused the record.
14. It is specific contention of the Learned
counsel for the petitioner that the power is vested
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
with the authority to cancel the allotment made to
the petitioner, but in the present case, the Executive
Director has cancelled the allotment which is in
violation of the judgment in "Deepak Paints"(Supra)
and therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned
order and direct the BIADA authorities to allow him
to commence the project work.
15. On perusal of the allotment Letter dated
16.12.2014, it is evident that the allotment letter
was issued by the Executive Director of BIADA with
specific conditions. Para-19 of the allotment letter
grants ample power to cancel allotment, in case the
initiation of construction work to a specific project is
not initiated. The cancellation order was also issued
by the Executive Director-BIADA.
16. If the contention of the Learned counsel
for the petitioner is accepted that the authority alone
has the power to cancel the allotment, then the
allotment letter issued by the Executive Director
would also be void ab-initio.
17. On perusal of the judgment of Deepak
Paints(Supra), it is evident that BIADA Act, 1974
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
underwent an amendment in the year 1992, which
introduced Section 6(2) to provide adequate power
to the authority to cancel allotted plots. However,
this provision does not provide about the procedures,
for taking possession after the cancellation of an
alloted order/lease deed. As a result it has become
difficult to take possession of the cancelled plots,
due to various legal provisions. As such, to overcome
various legal hurdles, it become necessary to amend
Section 6(2) of the Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority Act, 1974.
18. The amendment under Section 6(2)
which reads as follows:-
"2(a). In case necessary effective
steps are to be taken within the
fixed period to establish the
industry, the authority shall in
such condition cancel the allotted
plot/shed and also forfeit the
amount deposited in this
connection. (emphasis mine) The
authority shall before cancelling
the allotment allow one month
time to the allottee to put up his
case. The allottee after being
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
dissatisfied with the order of the
authority may file an appeal to the
State Government within one
month and the State Government
shall, after due consideration
dispose of within two months from
the date of receipt of the appeal.
19. On perusal of the above section, it is
evident, that if necessary steps were not taken by
the petitioner to establish the industry, the authority
has the power to cancel allotment and shall also
have the power to forfeit the deposited amount.
However, before cancelling the allotment the
authority shall give one month time, to the petitioner
unit to put up his case.
20. On perusal of the cancellation order,
dated 12.07.2016, it is evident that BIADA has issued
three notices, prior to the cancellation of the
allotment dated 12.07.2016 and the final notice was
sent through registered post which was returned
undelivered.
21. In the present case, the impugned order
i.e. cancellation of the allotment was issued on
12.07.2016. As per Section 6(2)(a), the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
had the right to file an appeal before the State
Government, within one month but the petitioner has
not availed the remedy of appeal.
22. During the course of argument, it is
submitted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner
that he intends to prefer an appeal before the
appropriate authority by submitting all the
supporting materials to establish that he has
commenced the work on the allotted land and that
he also made a representation before the authority
and the District Magistrate, bringing the hindrances
that prevented the establishment of the unit.
23. Considering the submissions made by
the petitioner, this Court is of the considerable view
that the petitioner shall prefer the appeal before the
State Government within two months from the date
of receipt of this order and in turn the State
Government shall hear the appeal and pass
appropriate orders, after considering the entire
materials on record within two months from the date
of filing of such an appeal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16578 of 2016 dt.04-03-2025
24. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ
petition is disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Manishkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 27.03.2025
Transmission Date 27.03.2025
