ORDER : Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 5. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 2. 4. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 assisted by Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate. 5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a. That in the instant application, the Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 11.12.07 signed and issued by the Respondent No.2 on 4.2.08, whereby and whereunder the said Respondent has wrongfully and illegally rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner on the issue and order of cancellation of allotment of its industrial plot and has most surprisingly upheld the allotment of same very land in favour of the Respondent No.6 even without hearing the concerned another appeal preferred by the Petitioner before him on 17.01.08 upon which not even a single hearing has taken place and is still pending. And, b. The Petitioner prays for quashing of land allotment order dated 17.9.07 passed/issued by the Respondent No.4 whereby and whereunder the said Respondent has wrongfully and arbitrarily allotted the Petitioner’s industrial land to the Respondent No.6 on his personal and wrongful consideration and the Petitioner also seeks for issuance of appropriate and suitable directions upon the Respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the concerned land in question. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- a. That as back as in the year 1995, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land total area 8 acres by Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority at Jamshedpur. Subsequently the petitioner required more land for expansion and the petitioner was allotted another piece of land being 4 Acres vide allotment order dated 22.01.2003. b. In the year 2004, the petitioner required more land for the purposes of establishing Producer Gas Plant and accordingly 3.08 acres of additional land was allotted to the petitioner by the respondent Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vide land allotment letter dated 26.10.04 with certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. b. In the year 2004, the petitioner required more land for the purposes of establishing Producer Gas Plant and accordingly 3.08 acres of additional land was allotted to the petitioner by the respondent Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vide land allotment letter dated 26.10.04 with certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. c. Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the payment in relation to the land is concerned the petitioner has already made entire payment as is apparent from para-9 of the writ petition which has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. d. However, the respondent authority earlier had issued one show-cause notice dated 13.12.2006 making two allegations against the petitioner, firstly, that the petitioner has not yet commenced production in the plot of land of 3.08 acres which was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 26.10.2004 and secondly, the amount which was required to be paid by the petitioner was not paid. e. Pursuant to this show-cause notice, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 06.02.2007 before the authority giving the entire background and so far as this particular plot of land is concerned, and a specific stand was taken by the petitioner at para – 10 of the said reply which reads as follows:- “10. We had asked for 3.08 Acres of additional land for installation of Producer Gas Plant for replacement of furnace oil with high caloric value producer gas firing system in the reheating furnaces which was allotted to us vide Land Allotment Letter No.1643/ADA dated 26.10.04. This was of vital importance for cost control and survival of industry in context with the market scenario that existed at that time. The said land would have been used for the purpose for which it was allotted except that we could not install producer gas plant as the cost of furnace oil was produced substantially by the co-operation and technical guidance provided by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Subsequently if price of Furnace Oil gets higher we will be compelled to install Producers Gas Plant for our survival. Our 3.08 acres of land has been developed with roads surrounded by brick wall all around, a computerised weighbridge has also been installed plantation of trees has been done as a measure of environmental protection, all at a huge cost to us despite such difficult circumstances. Our 3.08 acres of land has been developed with roads surrounded by brick wall all around, a computerised weighbridge has also been installed plantation of trees has been done as a measure of environmental protection, all at a huge cost to us despite such difficult circumstances. However, we have continued to use the land for storage and handling of Raw Materials and Scrap till such time we are planning Expansion.” f. He submits that on similar lines another show-cause notice dated 22.01.2007 was issued to the petitioner and to which the petitioner again filed a detailed reply and took similar stand as was earlier taken by the petitioner in connection with the installation of Producer Gas Plant. g. Then the petitioner was called for personal hearing vide letter dated 01.06.2007 which was duly attended by the petitioner and ultimately order of cancellation of plot of 3.08 Acres (which was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment order dated 26.10.2004) was passed vide Memo No.1565 dated 19.07.2007 which was communicated to the petitioner belatedly only on 14.08.2007. h. By referring to the Memo No.1565 dated 19.07.2007, counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for cancellation are two folds, first is in connection with the payment which has already been paid by the petitioner and second was in connection with the allegations that the petitioner has not started the production on the allotted plot of 3.08 Acres. i. The counsel for the petitioner submits that reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice which was a detailed reply and the same has not been taken into consideration by the authorities and immediately after passing of the order of the cancellation the respondent authority allotted 3 Acres of land to respondent no.6 and the entire stage was setup by the respondents jointly for the solitary purpose of cancellation of the plot of land allotted to the petitioner and its allotment to the Respondent no 6. j. He submits that immediately after communication of the order of cancellation of the said plot, the petitioner filed his appeal before the appellate authority on 07.09.2007 and the order of allotment to the respondent no.6 was issued only on 17.09.2007, therefore any order of allotment to the Respondent no 6 has to be subject to the result of the appeal and now this writ petition. k. He submits that the order of allotment to respondent no.6 was issued only after the appeal which was filed by the petitioner on 07.09.2007 and the whole purpose was to frustrate the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 dismissing the appeal, although the order was signed on 04.02.2008 and was communicated vide Memo dated 04.02.2008. l. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal was sued away by the fact that respondent no.6 herein had submitted that that huge investment has already been made by the respondent no.6 and they were proposing to invest not less than Rs. 3 crores on the proposed unit which was to be setup by respondent no.6. m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that however, the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal had clearly indicated that the respondent AIADA will give land to the petitioner on priority basis as and when the petitioner so requires. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the unit of the petitioner is a growing unit and the petitioner requires land particularly in view of the fact that the Producer Gas Plant which was to be installed in 3.08 Acres of land has been subsequently installed in the other portion of the plot earlier allotted to the petitioner and he submits that he needs additional land to install the tube erection plant for which the necessary approval had already been received by the competent authority i.e., Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Union of India. The statement has made by the petitioner in his rejoinder at para – 16 which is quoted herein below for ready reference:- “16. That in reply to the statement and averments made in para - 10 of the counter affidavit under reply it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has no doubt submitted proposal for erection producer gas plant but because of the inflation in the cost of crude oil, has switched over its proposal to erecting a tube manufacturing plant at the concerned site in question and for which approval has also been granted to the petitioner from the ministry of commerce and industry. The petitioner undertakes before this Hon’ble Court to erect the aforementioned tube manufacturing unit, the proposals and concrete plans for which has already been sanctioned on the land in question.” n. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land is required by the petitioner and he has already received the necessary clearance from the competent authority therefore the impugned order of cancellation of the plot of land should be set-aside and the petitioner should be permitted to retain the plot of land which has been cancelled. 7. Counsel for the respondents AIADA on the other hand submits that the petitioner was required to comply with each and every terms and conditions of the order of allotment which included the commencement of production within a period of six months. The allotment letter was issued as back as in the year 2004 but the petitioner did not commence its production on the plot of land of 3.08 Acres even till the year 2006 and therefore a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He submits that in the reply filed by the petitioner the maximum paragraphs related to investment made prior to 2004 and mainly the matter relating to 3.08 Acres was mentioned in para-9 of the reply which has already been quoted above. He submits that as admittedly the petitioner did not commence production as per the terms and condition of the allotment letter therefore the impugned order of cancellation of allotment was rightly passed by the respondent authority. 8. However, during the course of arguments counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the dues against the petitioner is concerned, at the time of issuance of show-cause notice dues were there, but, the entire dues were cleared prior to the date of cancellation of the plot which is dated 19.07.2007. 9. He submits that although the order of cancellation mentions about non-payment of dues and also the matter regarding non-commencement of production, even if the allegations regarding non-payment of dues is considered to be bad, the fact remains that the petitioner did not commence production on 3.08 Acres and did not install plant for which it was allotted therefore the impugned order does not require any interference. Counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the appellate order is concerned, the appellate authority has also taken care of the fact that even till 11.12.2007 the petitioner has no plan to install the Producer Gas Plant on the account of the fact that the same was not required by that point of time. He submits that the reference to the investment made by respondent no.6 in the plot allotted to them subsequently is just a passing reference and the allegations of malafide which has been made by the petitioner is denied by the counsel appearing on behalf of the AIADA. 10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 submits that the unit of respondent no.6 has already commenced production as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. She submits that there is no question of any malafide so far as they are concerned, particularly in view of the fact that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed on 19.07.2007 and the allotment was made to them on 17.09.2007. She submits that merely because the allotment was made during the pendency of the appeal that does not lead to any conclusion that there was any collusion or malafide on the part of any of the respondents. 11. She submits that the appeal was dismissed on 04.02.2008, and the possession of the property was handed over to them only on 06.02.2008 and thereafter, they have commenced their production on the plot. She submits that the prayer for interim relief was also denied to the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.04.2008 and accordingly, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents in continuing with the possession and continue with the production in the plot allotted to them. She submits that against the interim order one Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 222 of 2008 was filed which was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 20.11.2008. 12. Counsel for the State submits that they have taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit that they are ready to cooperate with the future prospects as has been indicated in the appellate order and there is no malice against the petitioner and their allegation of malice is only out of apprehension. 13. 12. Counsel for the State submits that they have taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit that they are ready to cooperate with the future prospects as has been indicated in the appellate order and there is no malice against the petitioner and their allegation of malice is only out of apprehension. 13. After hearing the counsels for the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly the plot of 8 acres land was allotted to the petitioner as back as in the year, 1995 and subsequently, 4 acres of land was allotted in the year 2003 and thereafter in the year 2004, 3.08 acres of land was allotted to the petitioner. 14. As per the terms and conditions of the order of allotment dated 26.10.2004, the petitioner was supposed to commence its production by installing the unit and in case of non-installation of unit, there was a clear indication that the allotment will stand cancelled. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner was issued show-cause notice mentioning about non-payment of dues and about non commencement of production and pursuant to the show-cause notice the petitioner had admittedly deposited the dues prior to the passing of final order. 16. So far as the allegation regarding commencement of production is concerned the petitioner had taken specific stand at para – 9 of its reply to show cause ,that although the land of 3.08 Acres was allotted for installation of Producer Gas Plant but because of subsequent development in connection with the economics aspects of production of furnace oil and requirement of Gas Plant, even on the date of filing of the show-cause reply ,the petitioner had no requirement for installation of producer gas plant. Thus from the records of the case it appears that the purpose for which 3.08 Acres of Additional land was allotted to the petitioner was frustrated even on the date of filing the show-cause reply. Considering this aspect of the matter the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 19.07.2007. In the order dated 19.07.2007 the authority has also taken into consideration regarding non–payment of dues, which according to the petitioner as well as the respondent herein, such ground is not correct as admittedly the petitioner had cleared all the dues prior to the order of cancellation. In the order dated 19.07.2007 the authority has also taken into consideration regarding non–payment of dues, which according to the petitioner as well as the respondent herein, such ground is not correct as admittedly the petitioner had cleared all the dues prior to the order of cancellation. However, even if the allegation regarding non-payment of dues is not correct, but the fact remains that the petitioner did not commence its production as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Similar view was taken by the appellate authority also and therefore from the perusal of the appellate order, this Court does not find any illegality in the cancellation of plot. 17. So far as the allegations of the petitioner regarding malice against respondent AIADA and respondent no.6 are concerned, the same is unfounded .The records of the case clearly shows that the petitioner did not act as per the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. It further appears that reason not acting as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter was the economic non viability of installation of Gas Producer Plant at the relevant point of time. However the petitioner has subsequently, as per the requirement installed the Gas Producer Plant in the available portion of land and the petitioner has submitted that additional land is required by the petitioner. This court finds that there is a clear indication in the impugned order that the respondent will take care of the requirement of land as and when the same is required by the petitioner. Even during the course of the arguments, the respondent have shown their commitment to abide by the order of the appellate authority which directs that the petitioner would be granted land on priority basis as per the requirement of the petitioner in future. It appears from the records that the petitioner has already obtained the necessary clearance for the purposes of installation of tube plant, as is mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner and this fact is not dispute by the counsels for the parties present here. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner requires additional land and the petitioner intends to apply online. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cancellation of the plot of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner requires additional land and the petitioner intends to apply online. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cancellation of the plot of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner applies for additional land for its approved project for which clearance has been given by the ministry, this Court directs the respondent AIADA to expeditiously consider the additional requirement of land by the petitioner as per the mandate of the impugned appellate order, wherein while dismissing the appeal it has been clearly indicated that the respondent AIADA will give land to the petitioner on priority basis as and when the petitioner so requires. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.