Patna High Court
Ramanuj Prasad Singh And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 6 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11551 of 2015
======================================================
1. Ramanuj Prasad Singh, son of Nand Kishore Singh
2. Nand Kishore Singh son of Late Jai Prakash Singh
Both resident of village Parasiya, P.O. Kara, Anchal Barun, P.S. Jamhaur,
District Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Industries Department Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna
5. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s S.N.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate
Gaurav Kumar
Surendra Prasad Singh
Mukund Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, SC 22
For the BIADA : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-05-2025
Re. I.A. No. 1 of 2024
1. During the pendency of the Writ
petition I.A. No. 1 of 2024 was filed for the
following additional reliefs:
"(i) Order contained in memo
no. 1084 dated 05.10.1999 contained in
Annexure-4 issued by The Commissioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
2/10
Industries Department and letter
contained in memo no. 1170 dated
18.03.2015
contained in Annexure-12 of
the writ application issued by the Senior
Accounts Officer may be quashed by this
Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court may
be further pleased to direct the
respondents to charge the price of the
land in question according to the Industrial
terms and conditions.
(ii) Commissioner and
Secretary, Industry Department Bihar,
Patna may be added as respondent no. 6
to this petition."
2. A counter affidavit to I.A. No. 1 of
(BIADA). It is averred therein that, through the
present Interlocutory Application, the petitioners
seek to challenge the allotment letter dated
05.10.1999, after a lapse of 24 years from the date
of allotment. The petitioner had accepted the
terms of the allotment and subsequently
established and operated a petrol pump on the
allotted land for over two decades. The objections
now raised by the petitioners, appear to be an
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
afterthought and are intended to harass the
respondent authorities. The allotment was made
on commercial terms, by letter dated 05.10.1999,
therefore, the Interlocutory application liable to be
dismissed.
3. It is further submitted on behalf of
the respondent BIADA that the petitioners failed to
exercise due diligence and have raised this claim
after an inordinate delay. It is a well-established
legal principle that the law assists those who are
vigilant and not to those who sleep over their
rights. Consequently, the petitioner's claim is liable
to be rejected. The amendment sought through the
present Interlocutory Application suffers from gross
delay and laches, and hence, it deserves to be
dismissed.
4. It is submitted by the Learned
counsel for the respondent BIADA that the conduct
of the answering respondents, in passing the
impugned order, has been in full consonance with
the provisions of the BIADA Act. No provision of the
BIADA Act or the allied Rules has been violated by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
the respondent authorities while passing the
impugned order.
5. The Learned counsel for the
respondent BIADA further submitted that the
petitioners are attempting to take undue
advantage of their own wrongdoing and the
petitioners themselves were at fault and have
wrongly accused the respondent authorities of
misconduct, despite their own failure to act in
accordance with the law.
6. Heard the Learned Senior counsel for
the petitioners Mr. S.N.P.Singh as well as the
Learned counsel for the respondents.
7. From the facts presented, it is crystal
clear that the petitioners have sought to challenge
the order dated 05.10.1999 contained in
Annexure-4 after a lapse of twenty-four years, and
the rejection of order dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure-
12) after 8 years.
8. In view of the inordinate delay in
raising the challenge, this Court is of the
considerable view that the petitioners cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
permitted to question the validity of the said
allotment at a very belated stage.
9. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application
No. 1 of 2024 stands dismissed.
10. The Writ petition has been filed to
direct the respondents to calculate the price of
land given to the petitioners on the basis of norms
of price fixed for small scale industries, and,
pending final hearing the respondents may be
directed not to take any coercive step for payment
of any higher amount from the petitioners.
11. The brief facts extracted from the
petition are that on 12.03.1999, the petitioners
applied for allotment of land, for the purpose of
establishing a petrol pump under the category of
small scale industry, before the Managing
Director, Patna Industrial Area Development
Authority, Patna, which is now known as Bihar
Industrial Area Development Authority ("BIADA").
When the land was not provided by the
respondents, the petitioners again sent reminder
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
on 15.07.1999 to the respondent BIADA
submitting all relevant facts and laws as provided
under Sections 2(k), 2(l) and 2(m) of the Factories
Act, 1948, contending that the petrol pump of the
petitioners is a "factory" as it employs more than
10 workers per day. As per the industrial policy of
the State Government the petrol pump of the
petitioners qualifies as a small scale Industry since
the investment was less than one crore rupees. It
is submitted by the petitioner that by letter dated
18.08.1999, the respondent No. 4 sent a
recommendation to the respondent No. 2 to allot
the land under the category of small scale
industry satisfying that pumping of petrol/diesel
constitutes a manufacturing process. However,
the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 02.09.1999
conveyed to respondent No. 4 that nothing is
manufactured at a petrol pump and accordingly
recommended allotment of land to the petitioner
No. 1 on commercial basis. Therefore, the
respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5.10.1999
(Annexure-4) issued the order for allotment of land
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
under the commercial category and accordingly
commercial price was charged. Respondent No. 4
vide letter No. 1222/D dated 22.10.1999 issued
the final allotment order and the petitioner No. 1
on 20.10.1999, deposited a sum of Rs. 8,26,600/-
as consideration money and, thereafter,
possession of land was handed over on
29.10.1999. It is contended that the petitioners
approached the respondents several times to
rectify the alleged illegality in categorization of the
allotment of land but action was not taken.
12. It is further submitted by the
petitioner that vide letter dated 01.02.2012
(Annexure-8), the respondent BIADA raised a
demand of Rs. 15,01.445/- calculated on
commercial rates. After receiving aforesaid letter
(Annexure-8) the petitioner No. 1 submitted a
detailed representation vide letter No. 112 dated
19.09.2013 (Anneuxre-9) before the Commissioner-
cum-Secretary, Industries Department explaining
how his petrol pump was a small scale industry
and illegality in the order passed by respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 again submitted
representations dated 8.11.2013 vide Letter No.
141/P before the respondents. It is further
submitted by the petitioner that again a
representation was filed on 4th December, 2013
citing all relevant, legal and factual grounds.
13. It is further submitted by the
petitioners that all the aforesaid representations
were rejected by the respondent authorities, and a
final demand of Rs. 15,69,802/- was made vide
letter dated 18th of March, 2015 directing payment
within a period of 15 days from the date of
issuance of letter.
14. The Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner in support of his case, relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2009) 15 SCC 30 (Qazi Noorul, H.H.H. Petrol
Pump & another Vs. Deputy Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation)
wherein their Lordships held that "Section 2(k)
sub-clause (ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 stated
that pumping oil is a manufacturing process".
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
15. Heard Learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner as well as the respondents and
perused the record.
16. It is important to note that the land
was allotted to the petitioner on 28.10.1999
(Annexure-5) by the respondent authorities at a
commercial rate, which was accepted by the
petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner
deposited a sum of Rs. 8,26,600/-. A perusal of the
record clearly reveals that the petitioner did not
challenge Annexure-5. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted representations dated 19.09.2013
(Annexure-9), 08.11.2013 (Annexure-10), and
04.12.2013 (Annexure-11), all of which were
rejected by the respondent authorities by letter
dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure-12).
17. Surprisingly, the petitioner has not
challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1084
dated 05.10.1999 (Annexure-4), the land allotment
letter dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure-5), or the order
dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure-12), whereby the
representations of the petitioner were rejected and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11551 of 2015 dt.06-05-2025
a final demand of Rs. 15,69,802 was raised.
18. By way of I.A. No. 1 of 2024, filed in
the year 2024, the petitioners at a belated stage
challenged Annexures-4 and 12.
19. This Court, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, has already
dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2024, observing that the
petitioners cannot be permitted to question the
validity of the said allotment as well as Annexure-
12 dated 18.03.2015 at a delayed stage.
20. Based on the foregoing discussion,
this Court is of the considered view, that there is
no merit in the case of the petitioners.
21. Accordingly, the Writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
22. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date
