Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 239 (JHR)

Simbha Chalem Industries v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-06

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority and Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Secretary, Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as BIADA), whereby, piece of land allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled as well as for quashing the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the proprietor of the petitioner has made an application before BIADA, pursuant to that the piece of land measuring 0.62 acres bearing plot no. I/B-1 in Bokaro Industrial Area for the manufacture of items such as mechanized rubber was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the respondent-BIADA vide letter dated 07.07.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted delivery of possession. The petitioner commenced operation of rubber industry, however due to fall in market of manufacturing capacity of rubber and the petitioner's unit was to be operated on credit basis, that is why the petitioner-company in question was running in loss and, thereafter, the industry was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved to BIADA to restart a new industrial activity and vide letter dated 02.12.1996 issued under the signature of the Managing Director of BIADA, the petitioner was allowed to manufacture additional items i.e. C.I. Scrap, steel scrap and industrial scrap processing. Thereafter, unit was registered as small scale industry and permanent registration certificate was issued vide letter dated 27.02.1997 for the aforesaid modified items. The proprietor thereafter could not run the business after April 1998 as he was suffering from severe illness and was treated at Vellore. Subsequently, the respondent-BIADA issued show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner by explaining the cause of not running the industry. However, assurance was given on behalf of the petitioner that whatever dues are pending, that will be paid by the petitioner to the BIADA and, therefore, one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the petitioner to run the industry in question, but allotment of the said plot was cancelled vide order dated 23.11.2005. However, assurance was given on behalf of the petitioner that whatever dues are pending, that will be paid by the petitioner to the BIADA and, therefore, one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the petitioner to run the industry in question, but allotment of the said plot was cancelled vide order dated 23.11.2005. Pursuant to the show-cause notice, Evaluation Committee was constituted and the Evaluation Committee held a meeting on 24.01.2006 along with representations of several other similarly situated units. The Evaluation Committee decided that if the petitioner deposits the entire dues within one month and start production within six months, cancellation can be revoked. Subsequently, the Managing Director of the BIADA vide letter dated 08.05.2006 forwarded list of 27 units, which are defaulters, to the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand for taking a suitable decision. Thereafter, many of the cancellation orders have been revoked by the respondents. Some of the revocation order of cancellation are brought on record at Annexure-10 series to this writ petition. The petitioner was expecting communication in this regard and has not received any communication, but nothing has come out in favour of the petitioner by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner filed a representations dated 04.03.2013 requesting therein to allow him to deport the dues of the authority and to restart its unit, which was refused by the authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was numbered as Appeal No. 9 of 2013, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2014. Being aggrieved with this order also, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is incorrect because the Evaluation Committee has opined in its report with regard to other similarly situated units also that if the petitioner deposits entire dues of the BIADA within stipulated period, permission for restarting the industry can be provided, but cancellation order has been passed by the respondent-authorities. She further submits that in the case of other similarly situated units, cancellation order has been revoked by the respondent-authorities, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. She further submits that in the case of other similarly situated units, cancellation order has been revoked by the respondent-authorities, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. She further submits that it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 13.04.2015 that the appeals filed after 28.07.2009 were not found fit for condonation of delay as no cogent case had been made out and the contention made in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit is not having any statutory provision and there is no cut-off date on record to show from where that date has been procured by the authority concerned. She further submits that as per Annexure-J to the supplementary counter affidavit, the name of the petitioner's unit is mentioned at Sl. No.19 and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.10.2014 because the appeal was filed after 28.07.2009 and that is why that date has been considered as cut-off date by the authority concerned. She further submits that the case of other similarly situated industries has been considered by the appellate authority pursuant to Evaluation Committee's report and the delay in filing the appeal has also been condoned and those industries are allowed to continue production subject to monitoring by BIADA, whereas, the case of the petitioner's unit has not been considered by the appellate authority. There is no reason assigned as to what was the occasion to come to the cut-off date dated 28.07.2009 and not to entertain the appeal of the petitioner after that date. 5. Per contra, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BIADA supports the cancellation order by way of referring Section 6(2)(A) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 and submits that it is condition precedent that if the industry has not taken effective steps, the allotment can be cancelled. He further submits that there is provision of appeal before the State Government, which needs to filed within one month and the State Government has got no power to condone the delay. He further submits that the question of equality does not come in this case as the authority concerned as decided the matter in quasijudicialfunction and in that view of the matter, Article 14 will not come into play. 6. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State accepts the arguments of Dr. He further submits that the question of equality does not come in this case as the authority concerned as decided the matter in quasijudicialfunction and in that view of the matter, Article 14 will not come into play. 6. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State accepts the arguments of Dr. Singh i.e. mutatismutandis, but he denied the argument of Dr. Singh to the effect that the State cannot condone the delay. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused Annexure-J as well as Evaluation Committee's report, wherein, it has been stated that if the entire dues of BIADA are paid within one month, BIADA will consider for re-starting of the industry of the petitioner, which is also with regard to other industries and that has been taken into consideration in the case of other similarly situated industries and the appellate authority has condoned the delay and allowed those industries to continue production with rider that BIADA will monitor the production of those industries. There is no reason assigned that what was the occasion to come to the cut-off date i.e. 28.07.2009 to the effect that thereafter no condonation of delay in appeal would be considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority on the one hand allowed other industries to re-start the production, on the other hand the petitioner's industry has been elbowed out, which shows colourful exercise of power. The appellate authority is not consistent in its view. The appellate authority has passed order of revocation of cancellation of allotment of other industries, but another order has been passed for the petitioner's unit. Thus, there is no consistency in the order of the appellate authority. 8. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 9 of 2013 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.