JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Lamba, counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. C.A. Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(a) For quashing of the memo no. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the allotment order as contained in memo no. 615 dated 31.05.2002 with respect to 10,000 square ft. of land out of 45,000 square feet of land allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled and further consideration value of the same has also been forfeited. (b) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 222 (Secretary) Ranchi dated 27.10.2008 issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation as contained in memo no. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 has been rejected without appropriately considering the case of the petitioner.” 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- (i) The petitioner was allotted 45000 Square feet of land vide allotment order, as contained in Land Allotment order no. 615/ADA dated 31.05.2002 with respect to Plot no. M-20 (Part) in Phase-6, Adityapur Industrial Area for the purpose of establishing industry and was handed over to the petitioner on 04.10.2002. (ii) Soon thereafter the petitioner started civil construction work and land development work and had invested about Rs. 14.50 lacs for the aforesaid purpose. However, due to unavoidable circumstances and paucity of fund, petitioner could not establish the industry within the time frame. The respondents vide letter no. 1054/ADA dated 25.05.2006 issued show cause to the petitioner, asking the petitioner to explain the reasons for non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the allotment order and another show cause was issued vide letter dated 17.07.2006 . In the show cause issued to the petitioner, it was mentioned that if the petitioner fails to give any satisfactory explanation then it will be deemed that they are not interested in pursuing the sanctioned programme and allotment order/lease deed of the aforesaid land will be cancelled and the deposited security amount will be forfeited and the AIADA will take necessary action for taking back the possession of the aforesaid land. (iii) The petitioner responded to the show cause notices vide letters dated 23.06.2006 and 28.7.2006 and explained that steps for starting the industry was already taken but the petitioner could not start the production for reasons beyond its control and made request for extension of time . Accordingly vide letter dated 1.9.2006 the petitioner was granted time till November 2006 and it was mentioned that if the petitioner does not start commercial production, steps will be taken for cancellation of allotment of land. (iv) Thereafter in the month of September 2006, the lease deed was duly registered vide lease deed dated 27th September 2006. (v) The counsel submits that immediately after execution of the lease deed, the petitioner applied for registration of the Unit as Small Scale Industry which was granted to the petitioner on 22.06.2007. (vi)The counsel submits that upon registration of the lease deed all the necessary steps like registration of the petitioner as Small Scale Industry Unit, granting electricity connection etc. could be taken. (vii) Immediately after registration the petitioner made all endeavour to start commercial production by which various steps such as grant of electricity connection, application for enhancement of load etc. was done and ultimately the unit of the petitioner came into production in the year 2008. (viii) Vide letter dated 05.07.2008, the petitioner was directed to appear before respondent no. 2 and explain as to why the allotment issued in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled for non compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment. It was mentioned that during inspection, it was found that no production was being made in the unit of the petitioner. (ix) Pursuant to this show cause notice, the petitioner responded subsequently vide letter dated 14.07.2008 and mentioned that the petitioner has already made investment of Rs. 14.12 lacs including investment cost on land, civil construction and plant and machinery etc. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 21.07.2008 and apprised that there is total investment of Rs. 51-52 lacs for the Unit and apprise the authority that the Unit is already under production. (x) Thereafter the petitioner was surprised to see that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the allotment with respect to 10000 Sq. ft. out of 45000 Sq. ft. 51-52 lacs for the Unit and apprise the authority that the Unit is already under production. (x) Thereafter the petitioner was surprised to see that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the allotment with respect to 10000 Sq. ft. out of 45000 Sq. ft. on the ground that this portion of the land was not being utilized by the petitioner. (xi) Against this, appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 27.10.2008. (xii) Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the entire lease deed, there is no provision for partial cancellation of lease deed and he submits that admittedly the petitioner Unit was in production and only partial cancellation of lease deed has been done. The petitioner submits that rest of the portion are necessary for his production work and will be required to be utilized by the petitioner shortly. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 15 SCC 55 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held while interpreting similar clause as has been there in the instant writ petition that there is no question of partial cancellation as per clause of the lease deed. Learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 42 to 44.4 of the said judgment. 4. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits as follows:- a. There has been repeated show cause notices issued to the petitioner regarding non utilization of the land since the year 2006 itself. But the petitioner having failed to utilize the land show cause notices for cancellation of the entire plot was issued. However, as the petitioner had utilized only the portion of the land, therefore, the impugned order for partial eviction has been passed by the respondent no. 2 which has been rightly upheld by the appellate authority. b. So far clauses in the lease deed are concerned, there is no clause in the deed which prohibits the respondents for partial cancellation of lease deed. However Counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the provision of the lease deed of the instant case is paramateria to the clauses of the lease deed which has been considered by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2015(15) SCC 55. However Counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the provision of the lease deed of the instant case is paramateria to the clauses of the lease deed which has been considered by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2015(15) SCC 55. c. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the property is in the Adityapur Industrial Area Development authority and is meant for industrial development and petitioner cannot not be permitted to utilize only a portion of the land. By the impugned order, lease deed has been partially cancelled so that the same may be allotted to the other needy persons who may establish the industries. d. The allotment of the land was done as back as in the year 2002 and the petitioner had applied for electricity connection in the year 2006. Accordingly, conduct of the petitioner is not bonafide. Counsel for the respondent however could not responded to the fact that the lease deed was registered by the respondents only on 27th September 2006 and the land allotted to the petitioner was not cancelled in spite of the fact that the petitioner did not start the production till the year 2006 rather the petitioner was granted time till November 2006 and it was mentioned that if the petitioner does not start commercial production, the allotment of land will be cancelled. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition for the following facts and reasons:- a. Although plot was allotted to the petitioner as back as in the year 2002 and the plot remained unutilized till the year 2006, but the respondents did not take any step for cancellation of lease deed, rather, the respondents have executed registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner only on 27th September 2006. The conduct of the respondent regarding the execution of lease deed in the year 2006 goes to show that respondent had no grievance against the petitioner at least in the year 2006 for not commencing production in the plot allotted to the petitioner. Further the respondent themselves vide letter dated 1.9.2006 granted time to the petitioner to commence production by November 2006. Further the respondent themselves vide letter dated 1.9.2006 granted time to the petitioner to commence production by November 2006. b. So far as period after the year 2006 is concerned, it appears that thereafter show cause notice dated 5.8.2008 was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the allotment of entire plot on account of non commencement of production which was duly responded to by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.7.2008 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner has already started production and large number of machines were in the process of being installed and further machines were to be purchased for which orders were already placed. It was also mentioned that the entire land was required for immediate and future expansion programme in near future. c. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 22.7.2008 on the one hand it was ordered that the considering the present and future requirement of the petitioner , the petitioner is entitled to retain 45,000 sq feet of land ( which is the total area in the lease deed) and on the other hand the order of cancellation of 1000 sq feet of land has been passed . Against this order the appeal was dismissed by another impugned order dated 27.10.2008 whereby it was mentioned that allotment of 35,000 sq feet of land is to be continued with the petitioner and 10,000 sq feet of land is to be cancelled out of total area of 45,000 sq feet of allotted land. d. Thus from perusal of the impugned orders it is clear that this is not a case of cancellation of deed but it is a case of partial cancellation of the deed. e. In view of the various provisions of the lease deed the counsel for the respondent could not show any clause empowering the respondent for partial cancellation of the lease deed . It is also not in dispute that the relevant clauses of the lease deed involved in this case are paramateria to the clauses of the lease deed which was subject matter of interpretation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2015 (15) SCC 55. The Hon’ble supreme court in the said case has laid down that there is no provision in the lease deed for partial cancellation of the lease deed. The Hon’ble supreme court in the said case has laid down that there is no provision in the lease deed for partial cancellation of the lease deed. Clause (xvi) of the lease deed has been interpreted right from para 42 to 44.4 of the said judgment and in para 44.4 it has been held as follows:- “44.4. Clause (xiv) does not contemplate “taking possession of parts of the land” in contra-distinction to Clauses (iv) and (v). It only contemplates the termination of Grant I in the event of the failure on the part of the appellant to use the land for the specified purpose and eviction of the appellant from the land. In our opinion, the language of the clause is significant. It can only be invoked in the case of total failure to utilise the land for the specified purpose. Clause (xiv) read with the right of the appellant under Clause (v) to sell a part of the land covered by Grant I which is no longer required by him, can lead to only one conclusion that it was never intended by Grant I that every inch of the land must be utilised for the purpose of the establishment of the industry. Any other construction of Clause (xiv) would simply render Clause (v) meaningless and destructive of the right created thereunder in favour of the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the second respondent is not entitled to invoke Clause (xiv) in support of its impugned decision.” f. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment reported in 2015 (15) SCC 55. In view of the binding judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed and the memo no. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure-17) issued by the Respondent No. 2, and the memo no. 222 (Secretary) Ranchi dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure-18) issued by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The writ petition is hereby allowed.