The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of v. Industry Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4309 of 2014 M/s Bihar Re-Rolling Mills, having its works at Phase – I, Bokaro Industrial Area P.O. Balidih, P.S. Balidih, (Bokaro Steel City) District Bokaro through its proprietors namely (i) Priti Sinha, aged about 60 years, W/o Late Ajit Kr. Sinha (ii) Abhinav Ranjan, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Ajit Kumar Sinha (iii) Isha Sinha, aged about 35 years, D/o Late Ajit Kumar Sinha All are residents of 630, Okni, near tank, P.O. + P.S. + District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Versus Industry Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. P.S. & Distt. Ranchi 3. The Managing Director/Secretary, Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro – 14 P.O. Balidih, P.S. Balidih, Distt. Bokaro 4. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, P.O. + P.S. & District Dhanbad 5. The Superintendent, Food Corporation of India, Bokaro, P.O. + P.S. and District Bokaro 6. The District Supply Officer Chas (Bokaro) P.O. & P.S. Chas, … Respondents District Bokaro … CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp. No.4 For the Resp. No.3
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate : Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate --- 19/12.12.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “i) For issuance of an appropriate writ of or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order vide memo no. 154 s.ko/ Ranchi 04.07.2014, issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby and where under the land allotment order/lease deed granted in favour of the petitioner is cancelled and all amounts deposited towards the same has been forfeited in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6(2) clause (a) and (b) of Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (amendment) Act, 2001. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ of or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to cancel and/or rescind and/or withdraw forthwith the impugned order dated 04.07.2014 issued by the respondent no. 2, and all proceedings there under and/or in pursuance thereof; iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ of or a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents and/or their agents to forebear from giving any effect to and/or taking any step/coercive steps under and/or in pursuance of the impugned order dated 04.07.2014 issued by the respondent no. 2 and all proceedings there under and/or in pursuance thereof; iv) For an ad-interim order in terms of prayer (iii) above; v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), direction(s), or order(s) as your lordships may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” Preliminary objection 3. The learned counsel for the respondents at the threshold has raised a preliminary objection that the order of cancellation of lease dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure – 8) is not under challenge, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate order is under challenge which is dated 04.07.2014, and therefore, the order passed by the original authority merges with the appellate order and if the appellate order does not survive, then under such circumstances, the technical objection raised by the respondents is fit to be rejected. Arguments of the Petitioner 5. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner while giving the factual background of this case has submitted that the petitioner was allocated a total area of one acre i.e. 43,492 sq. ft. in Bokaro Industrial Area and the petitioner started manufacturing of re-rolling mill and steel scrap processing soon after delivery of possession dated 13.03.1999 and the unit started running smoothly. The petitioner was also granted permanent registration certificate vide letter no.1216 dated 03.12.2003. 6. He has further submitted that a letter was issued to the petitioner dated 27.05.2011 making an allegation that upon inspection on 12.05.2011, it was found that the petitioner has given a portion of the land so allotted to Food Corporation of India for its use as godown and the petitioner was asked to remove the godown. Pursuant thereto the petitioner took up the matter with Food Corporation of India vide letter dated 03.06.2011 so that the direction of the respondent Bokaro 2 Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BIADA) could be complied. Another letter dated 13.04.2012 to the same effect was also issued. However, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) did not abide by the request made by the petitioner. Further, in response to the letter dated 27.05.2011, the petitioner filed its reply to the Secretary, BIADA stating that the property was handed over to FCI for the purposes of godown under the verbal instructions of the then Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director of BIADA and since the FCI is government undertaking, therefore, the petitioner had also taken up the matter with FCI and requested the authority also to take up the matter with FCI so that they may remove the godown from the spot. 7. The learned counsel submits that thereafter another notice dated 29.05.2012 was issued by the respondent BIADA on the ground that handing over the property to FCI was a violation of the terms and conditions of lease and the petitioner was directed to get the godown removed failing which the lease will be cancelled. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the lease was cancelled and the order of cancellation was passed on 29.01.2014 (Annexure – 8) on the ground that the petitioner has not removed the FCI godown operating on the premises. The learned counsel submits that thereafter an appeal was filed before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not get the FCI godown removed from the spot. 8. The learned counsel submits that the fact that there were verbal directions issued by the then Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director of BIADA which was specifically raised by the petitioner in his reply was never refuted by the respondents and has further submitted that the petitioner was bound by the directions issued by the authority even if the direction was verbal. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not the sole unit where such direction was issued for the purposes of storage of FCI grains. Another unit namely, M/s. Prasad Electrical works was also issued verbal direction and his lease was cancelled on the ground that FCI godown was 3 running on the premises. This happened way back in 2012 and vide memo no.138 dated 22.11.2018, the appellate authority interfered with the order of cancellation of plot when the said unit submitted before the appellate authority that FCI had removed the godown and the unit was restored. He submits that the appellate authority while restoring the plot to M/s. Prasad Electrical Works clearly recorded that upon verbal orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the food grains were kept in the godown, and therefore, the storage of food grains in the godown cannot be said to be illegal. He submits that in the said order, it was also recorded that such kind of directions are issued by the district administration under special circumstances and the unit cannot be held responsible for complying with such direction. He submits that this order has been placed on record by filing an affidavit but the respondents are not in a position to distinguish the case of M/s. Prasad Electrical Works with that of the petitioner. Arguments of respondent Food Corporation of India 9. learned counsel appearing on behalf of The the Food Corporation of India has submitted that an affidavit has been placed on record by FCI dated 09.12.2024 wherein they have stated that they have already vacated the premises. However, on earlier occasion, the learned counsel for the FCI had stated that they shall vacate the premises, but some time may be required and as of now and by virtue of the affidavit, the FCI has already vacated the premises. The fact that FCI has vacated the premises is not under dispute by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BIADA (respondent no.3). Arguments of the Respondent BIADA. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of BIADA (the respondent no.3) while distinguishing the order passed in the case of M/s Prasad Electrical Works has submitted that the said unit was restored because of the reason that by that time, the FCI had already vacated the godown. This happened in 2018 although the show cause was issued in the year 2012. 11. The learned counsel has further submitted that the unit of the petitioner was non-functional since 2004, and therefore, the order 4 impugned does not call for any interference. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent BIADA has not been able to show any show cause with regard to the cancellation of plot on account of the reason that the unit was non-functional. Rather, it is not in dispute that the only reason for issuance of show cause to the petitioner was existence of FCI godown in the premises of the petitioner. However, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.461 of 2023 (Parmeshwar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) and LPA No.104 of 2023 (M/s Pandava Ceramic & Refractories Vs Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority) to submit that when the unit is not functional, then there is no question of restoration of lease. Findings of this Court. 12. So far as the preliminary objection of BIADA that the order of cancellation of lease is not under challenge, the same is highly technical in nature and this Court is of the considered view that such objection is not sustainable as the appellate order is already under challenge before this Court and the order of cancellation merges with the appellate order. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the only reason for which the show cause was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the lease was that there was a godown of FCI in the plot allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the circumstances under which the FCI food grains were kept which was informed to the Secretary, BIADA vide letter dated 16.04.2012 mentioning therein that the food grains were kept on account of verbal direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Managing Director, BIADA and they have taken up the matter with FCI for removal of the godown and by this letter, the petitioner also requested the respondent BIADA to ask FCI to remove the godown as FCI itself is a government undertaking. This was followed by subsequent letters issued by BIADA, but this aspect of the matter that 5 there was aforesaid verbal direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, BIADA has not been refuted in any of the communications issued by BIADA, and ultimately the lease of the petitioner was cancelled on the sole ground that there was a godown running in the premises of the petitioner which was being run by FCI. 14. This Court finds that after the cancellation of lease, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority which was numbered as Appeal No.1 of 2014 and aforesaid plea regarding verbal direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, BIADA was again raised before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority did not deal with this plea at all and sustained the order of cancellation by holding that the godown was still there in the unit of the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to get the same removed. 15. This Court finds that in the case of M/s. Prasad Electrical Works, a show cause was issued in the year 2011-2012 on the ground that the FCI godown was running on the spot and the appellate authority has taken this aspect of the matter into consideration that under the oral instructions of Deputy Commissioner, the unit was used for the purposes of keeping the food grains and the food grains were for the purposes of distribution amongst BPL families and however by the time the order was passed by the appellate authority, the godown was already removed. The appellate authority acknowledged the fact that M/s Prasad Electrical Works had no role in the matter and M/s Prasad Electrical Works cannot be held responsible for establishment and continuation of godown of FCI and ultimately the order of cancellation of the plot of M/s Prasad Electrical Works was set aside. 16. This Court finds that the case of the petitioner is on identical footing as that of M/s Prasad Electrical Works and the only difference is that by the time the impugned order in the present case was passed, the FCI godown continued to be there on the plot which has now been removed. However, the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has been issuing verbal orders for handing over the property for FCI godown 6 stands fully established by the order passed by the appellate authority. In the present case also, the petitioner had given an explanation that the FCI godown was set up under the verbal instruction of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, BIADA, but the same was never considered by the authority cancelling the plot or by the appellate authority, nor the plea that the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Managing Director, BIADA issued verbal instructions to the petitioner to allow FCI to setup godown to store food grains has been disputed in any of the impugned orders. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had acted in terms of the verbal directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, BIADA to allow the FCI to setup godown to store food grains. 17. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that when the petitioner had acted by virtue of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which may be verbal, the same cannot be said to be a violation of terms and conditions of the lease. The Deputy Commissioner was himself the Managing Director of BIADA at the relevant point of time. This Court is of the view that the sole reason for cancellation of the lease was the storage of FCI food grains in the unit of the petitioner and no other ground was taken for the purposes of cancellation. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to supplement the grounds which were never taken by the respondent BIADA in the show cause, which also remained the sole reason for cancellation of the allotment. 18. So far as the judgment passed in LPA No.104 of 2023 (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that in the said case, the reason for cancellation was that the writ petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the lease and the unit was not operational. In the present case, no such show cause was issued to the petitioner as to whether the unit was operational or non-operational and that was not the reason for cancellation. Similarly in LPA No.461 of 2023 (supra), the allotment was cancelled on the ground that there was no industrial production in the unit. In the present case, there is no such ground taken in the show cause. It is reiterated that the sole ground for cancellation was that 7 there was FCI godown in the premises of the petitioner. Consequently, the judgments which have been relied upon by the respondent BIADA do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the order of cancellation of lease of the petitioner dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure – 8) which has been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Appeal No.1 of 2014 (Annexure-22) calls for interference and they are accordingly set aside. 20. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 8