Authorised Signatory Registered And Corporate Office Titagarh v. Managing Director-Cum-Appellate Authority, RIICO

Judgment

1. Managing Director-Cum-Appellate Authority, RIICO Limited Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

2. Regional Manager, Office Of Regional Manager, Riico Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur. Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7228/2025 ----Respondents Cimmco Limited, (Now Titagarh Rail Systems Limited) Through Authorised Signatory Registered And Corporate Office- Titagarh Towers, 756, Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Managing Director-Cum-Appellate Authority, RIICO Limited, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

2. Regional Manager, Office of Regional Manager, RIICO Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. J.P. Goyal-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Bhandari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/07/2025

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, [2025:RJ-JP:29181] (2 of 6) [CW-7227/2025] arguments have been heard together in both matters and are being decided by this common order.

2. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of the subject plots to the respondents.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that industrial plots No. E- 4 and E-5, Brij Industrial area, Bharatpur were allotted to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions and the said allotment was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 28.08.2024 and 24.09.2024 respectively, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority on

16.04.2025 and the same was disposed of by the Appellate Authority granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an applications/undertaking with necessary documents in the Unit Office for transferring plot and time extension for commencement of production activity on the plots within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the order. Counsel submits that a direction was also issued to the authorities concerned to consider the same as per the prescribed rules and on payment of all applicable charges within next seven days. Counsel submits that immediately on the next day i.e. on 17.04.2025, the respondents raised a demand of Rs. 1,05,18,509 and Rs.63,95,608/- for plots No. E-4 and E-5 respectively. Counsel submits that the period was supposed to commence from the 16.04.2025 but immediately on the next date, a demand was raised by the respondents on

17.04.2025 asking the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:29181] (3 of 6) [CW-7227/2025] could not comply with the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the First Appellate Authority and some time thereafter i.e. on

02.05.2025 the impugned order has been passed. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, so seven days time be granted to do the needful exercise in terms of the direction No. 1 of the order dated 16.04.2025.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of hearing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner has shown his willingness to deposit the entire outstanding amount, hence under these circumstances, by issuing letter dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner was simply intimated to deposit the outstanding amount. Counsel submits that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority was not complied with by the respondents within the stipulated time fixed by the Appellate Authority i.e seven days w.e.f. 16.04.2025. Counsel submits that even till date, no application has been submitted, hence the respondents are left with no other option except to pass the order dated 02.05.2025 asking the petitioner to handover the possession of the plots to the respondents, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that a plot bearing Nos. E-4 and E-5 were allotted to the petitioner at Industrial Area, Bharatpur on certain terms and conditions. It appears that those [2025:RJ-JP:29181] (4 of 6) [CW-7227/2025] terms and conditions were not complied with by the petitioner and the allotment order was cancelled by the respondents vide orders dated 28.08.2024 and 24.09.2024 respectively, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority and the same was disposed of vide order dated

16.04.2025 with the following directions:- “1. That the appellant shall submit the requisite applications / undertaking along with necessary documents in the Unit Office for transfer of plot/time extension for commencement of production activity on the plot within 7 days from the receipt of this order and the same shall be considered by the Unit Office as per prescribed rules and on payment of all applicable charges within next 7 days.

2. That thereafter the Unit Office shall immediately issue the restoration order of the plot in favour of the appellant as per rules.

3. That the Appellant will have to commence production activity on the allotted plot within one year from the date of issuance of the restoration order.

4. That the Unit Office shall also submit the progress of the construction /production activity on the plot in every 4 months after restoration of the plot to the Appellate Authority as well as to Advisor (Infra) / P&D Cell, Head Office for proper supervision.

5. In case the appellant fails to fulfill any of the above conditions, the present order shall be treated as automatically withdrawn and the plot shall be deemed to be cancelled. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” [2025:RJ-JP:29181] (5 of 6) [CW-7227/2025]

7. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondents intimated the petitioner about the total outstanding by issuing a letter dated 17.04.2025. It appears that the petitioner has misinterpreted the aforesaid order as if the respondents would do nothing except to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioner and under this misinterpretation of the letter dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner has not submitted any application in terms of the order dated

16.04.2025. Since the order dated 16.04.2025 was not complied with by the petitioner as no application was submitted by him, hence under these circumstances, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 02.05.2025.

8. Perusal of the order dated 16.04.2025 indicates that the petitioner wanted to settle the dispute by depositing the dues and he has given his consent in this regard.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, one opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to settle the dispute between the parties, both petitions stand disposed of with the conditions that the petitioner would deposit half of the total outstanding amount with the respondent along with an application.

10. The application would be submitted by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 16.04.2025 within a period of seven days commencing from today. In case, the application along with 50% of the total outstanding amount is submitted by the petitioner, it is expected from the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. As a consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:29181] (6 of 6) [CW-7227/2025] stands modified. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

11. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, the order dated 02.05.2025 will come into picture automatically. Ashu/17-18 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J