JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed quashing of the demand notice No.298/ AR, demand notice No. 300/AR both dated 18.03.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 [The Regional Deputy Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur Region, Seraikella-Kharsawan] and commanding the respondents to refund the aggregate amount of Rs.84,78,58,757/-tendered against the above said demand notices. Under the notices following demands were raised: i. Rs.29,28,56,844/-, on account of financial liability for the past mergers under Regulation 24(i) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 2016 (herein-after be referred as JIADA Regulation) in relation to 77.98 acres of leasehold land. ii. A sum of Rs.55,50,01,913/-as financial liability for past merger along with outstanding land rent and land levy and processing fee for name change in relation to 207.12 Acres of land claimed by the Petitioner as freehold land. 2. The claim has been raised on the premise that both the lands i.e. 77.98 acres and 207.12 acres were leased by the Jharkhand Industrial Development Authority (JIADA, R-2) and the charges were levied under clause 24(i) of the JIADA Regulations against pending arrears and for merger. 3. Petitioner’s case is primarily that 207.12 acres was freehold land of the Petitioner Company and 77.98 acres of land was lease hold, but it was not liable to make the payment as it was a case of retrospective operation of JIADA regulation which came into force in 2016 and the merger took place 18 years ago. PETITIONER’S CASE LEASEHOLD LAND 4. Petitioner Company was originally engaged in steel and wire ropes and it comprised of two separate Divisions i.e. one is Steel Division and Wire and another is Wire Rope Division. 5. Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with Tata Steel Ltd (TSL) on 22.09.2018 and in terms of BTA, the Petitioner transferred all assets forming part of the Steel Division including land measuring 77.98 acres to Tata Sponge Iron Ltd which was leased by JIADA (R-2). When the permission for the said transfer was sought for from JIADA (R-2) in conformity with the terms of the allotment, the issue of financial liability of past mergers of various allottee entities belonging to Usha Martin Group was raised along with areas in land rent and land levy as a precondition for the said conveyance. When the permission for the said transfer was sought for from JIADA (R-2) in conformity with the terms of the allotment, the issue of financial liability of past mergers of various allottee entities belonging to Usha Martin Group was raised along with areas in land rent and land levy as a precondition for the said conveyance. Similar claims were also raised with respect to 134.86 acres of Freehold land, as if they were leasehold land. Having no option and on failing to reason with the authorities the amount was paid under protest. 6. An aggregate land area of 77.98 acres of Leasehold land was allotted by JIADA (R-2) on different dates from 1972 to 1999 in favour of seven separate companies all belonging to Usha Martin Group of the Petitioner for the exclusive industrial purposes of its Steel Division. 7. For the purposes of consolidation of financial and other resources, several intragroup corporate restructuring in the form of mergers concerning the seven companies within the Usha Martin Group of the petitioner who were allotted lease hold lands, were undertaken under the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 from the period 1983 to 2001. Such past mergers eventually resulted in the vesting of the leasehold interest in respect of 77.98 acres of land in the Petitioner. As a consequence of such past mergers name of the seven companies were changed. The name of Usha Martin Black (Wire Rope) Ltd was changed to Usha Martin Industries Ltd on 02.11.1983. Usha Alloys & Steel Ltd subsequently merged with Usha Martin Industries Ltd on 1.06.1988 whereby the 43.60 acres of leasehold land got transferred to Usha Martin Industries Ltd. In this way by past mergers the entire 77.98 acres of this land got fully vested in Usha Beltron Ltd. in the year 2001 and its name was changed to Usha Martin Ltd in the year 2003. 8. These past mergers were very much within the knowledge of JIADA which had in the years 2006 and 2013 allotted further area of 14.16 Acres of Leasehold land to merged entity i.e. Usha Martin Limited. FREEHOLD LAND 9. In the year 1989, the Petitioner requested the Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar for acquisition of approximately 200 acres of land for expansion of its industrial complex. FREEHOLD LAND 9. In the year 1989, the Petitioner requested the Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar for acquisition of approximately 200 acres of land for expansion of its industrial complex. Acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was initiated and in the notification it was stated that land was being acquired for public purpose which industrial development of M/s Usha Martin by the Govt. of erstwhile State of Bihar. 10. In the land acquisition cases the cost of land acquisition was paid by the Petitioner to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chaibasa (R-5) through JIADA (R-2) in November-December 1994. 11. After the acquisition of the Freehold Land at the behest and for express requirement of the Petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act by the Govt, the State of Bihar issued land allotment order no. 1431/ADA dated 21.08.1997 for 134.86 acres out of the Freehold Land to Usha Martin Industries Ltd and subsequently by a separate land allotment order No.654/ADA dated 28.05.2003 for 65.40 acres of the Freehold land, was issued to Usha Martin Industries Ltd. Both the allotment letters recorded that JIADA (R-2) would grant the lease of the allotted land separately in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame of six months from the date of each such land allotment order. However no such lease of the allotted land was ever granted in favour of the Petitioner. 12. Possession of the allotted land of 134.86 acres was handed over by JIADA (R-2) to the petitioner on 30.09.1997 and 65.40 acres on 29.05.2003. The allotment letter required the petitioner to pay JIADA (R-2) approximately Rs.1,12,43,278, being the increase in the then prevailing market value of the acquired land over and above Rs.1,24,82,336.45 which was the land which was the land acquisition cost that had already been paid by the petitioner to the Land Acquisition Officer (R-5). Petitioner paid the extra demand under protest and made a representation to the Government of the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar, which directed that JIADA (R-2) had no ground to charge any amount over and above the cost of acquisition of the land acquired. It permitted JIADA (R-2) to charge only 10% of the cost of land acquisition as administrative charges payable for its services rendered during the acquisition process as nodal agency. The excess amount was thereafter refunded. 13. It permitted JIADA (R-2) to charge only 10% of the cost of land acquisition as administrative charges payable for its services rendered during the acquisition process as nodal agency. The excess amount was thereafter refunded. 13. In 2003, the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Industries Government of Jharkhand, being the owner of the Freehold land conveyed the Freehold title of the land measuring 134.86 acres and 65.40 acres to registered conveyance deeds both dated 14.10.2003. The conveyance deed for the remaining acquired land of 6.86 acres was registered on 31.01.2019. All the conveyance deeds were signed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella (R-4) representing the Governor of Jharkhand. After the said transfer the land has been duly mutated and rent is being paid by the Petitioner to the State. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE 14. The financial liability that has been saddled on the petitioner’ company is under challenge on the ground that JIADA Regulation, 2016 in terms of which the financial liability has been charged has not come into force as it has not been in the Official Gazette :- “These regulations shall come into force on such date as the State Government may specify by notification in the Official Gazette and shall supersede all earlier Government/ Board Regulations, orders or Regulations, if any.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Although Regulations have been published in the Jharkhand Gazette extraordinary on 06.12.2022 bearing Notification No.576, but till date the date on which these regulations have to come into force has not been notified. Reliance is placed on 2020 SCC Online 1731 in which the question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court whether the JIADA regulations had come into force on its Gazette publication. It was held that the Regulations provided the date on which the notification had come into force but the said date has not been notified to the effect that from which date the JIADA Regulations came into force. 16. It is the case of the Petitioner that demand note Annexure-10 relates to free hold land on which the liability could not have been imposed on the petitioner. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for 200 acres of land for expansion of industrial complex on the request of Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar vide letter dated 09.11.1989 and 14.12.1989. 17. It is the case of the Petitioner that demand note Annexure-10 relates to free hold land on which the liability could not have been imposed on the petitioner. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for 200 acres of land for expansion of industrial complex on the request of Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar vide letter dated 09.11.1989 and 14.12.1989. 17. Due process of law relating to acquisition of land was completed with respect to free hold land in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1991-92 and the cost of land acquisition was paid by the Petitioner to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa (R-5) through the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority between November and December, 1994 for the entire 207.10 acres. 18. After the acquisition of free hold land, the land allotment letter was issued vide Order No. 1431/ADA dated 21.08.1997 for 134.86 acres out of free hold land to Usha Martine Industries Ltd. and by separate allotment letters, remaining land of 207.10 acres was allotted to the Petitioner. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,24,82,336.45. 19. A plain reading of the recital of the conveyance deeds with respect to 207.10 acres of land executed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-8), will show that conveyance was by way of absolute transfer of title. Title has been conveyed as stated in page-10 of the deed which reads as under: “A document be executed and registered by the State absolutely and forever conveying title of the land in village Jhurkuli described in Schedule below and shown in Red delineation in the attached sketch map to the company.” 20. Further, the recital of deed reflects transfer to be made permanent unconditional indefeasibly holding the same without any restriction and imposition whatsoever by or from the State or any persons, authority or establishment whatsoever and whosoever claiming through or under the State including JIADA. 21. Challenge to Demand Notice No. 298/AR dated 18.03.2019 of Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur at Seraikella-Kharswan under which an outstanding dues of Rs.30,90,87,474/-has been raised against the petitioner Company with respect to heads detailed in the said letter. The Petition is confined to challenge to the liability of Rs. 29,28,56,844/-which has been raised at Entry No. 1 with respect to lease deed area of 77.98 acres of Usha Beltron Ltd. on account of its merger. The Petition is confined to challenge to the liability of Rs. 29,28,56,844/-which has been raised at Entry No. 1 with respect to lease deed area of 77.98 acres of Usha Beltron Ltd. on account of its merger. With respect to it, it is submitted that no reason has been assigned in the letter regarding the basis on which this liability has been imposed on the Petitioner Company. It is further submitted that there was a change of name of Usha Beltron Ltd. to Usha Martin Ltd. which cannot be termed as merger for which a judicial order need to be passed in terms of Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. There is no such judicial order to justify the claim of merger. 22. Further, the lease deed executed by the JIADA in favour of the petitioner dated 05.11.2002 is cited. Condition of lease deed at para 3(b) specifically mentions that in case of any change in the ownership or possession of the lease hold or any part thereof either by auction purchase or transfer by the lessee with the permission of the lessor in terms of the conditions of this deed, such person so stepping into this lease shall execute a fresh lease deed on the same terms and conditions as of this lease and such person shall not be entitled to use the lease hold or any part thereof for any other purpose or any other industry than the one for which this lease has been granted. 23. As per the case of the Respondents, charge has been raised from the date of merger but the date of past merger has not been given in the impugned order. 24. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations 2016 on the basis of which liability has been imposed is under challenge on two counts. Firstly, from a plain reading of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2016, it will be apparent that it is prospective and operation is against the lessee from taking any action to merge or demerge or amalgamate or to be acquired by any entity without prior permission in writing of Chief Executive Officer of the region. Regulation 24 reads as under: “The lessee shall not take any action to Merge/demerge/amalgamate or to be acquired by any entity without the prior permission in writing of Chief Executive Officer of the region. Regulation 24 reads as under: “The lessee shall not take any action to Merge/demerge/amalgamate or to be acquired by any entity without the prior permission in writing of Chief Executive Officer of the region. On application of the lessee, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority after considering the facts of each case and after realizing 15% in case of MSME or 25% in case of others of the premium of the land prevailing in Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority at the time of consideration may grant such permission for Merge/demerge/amalgamate or acquisition provided that the lessee has not violated the condition of land allotment order/lease deed/bond. In case of violation of condition of land allotment order/ lease deed /bond the full cost shall be charged at the rate prevailing at the time of consideration. 25. It is submitted that no notice or part of hearing was given to the petitioner with regard to violation of any permission is taken in Regulation 24. CASE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 26. Learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised preliminary objection in the form of present Writ Petition wherein relief(s) pertaining to freehold and leasehold land have been clubbed together in one Writ Petition. 27. The second objection is with regard to competence of the person who has sworn affidavit in support of the Writ Petitioner wherein it has not been disclosed that by what authority he has sworn the affidavit. 28. Further objections have been raised regarding the absence of supporting documents with reference to the pleadings made in the Writ Petition. Specific reference has been made in Paras-7, 8 and other paras. While raising the argument on the point of leasehold area, a reference is drawn to Para 7 i.e. land allotment order (annexure-4) dated 21.08.1997 by which 134.86 acres of land were allotted to the petitioner-Usha Martin Limited by Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA). Para 7 reads as under :- “That the allottee will have to obtain written permission of the authority prior to making any change in the constitution of the firm (as Partnership, Private Limited Co., etc). If the land has been allotted to the unit as a proprietary concern, the same may be changed into partnership or private limited or limited company, but prior consent of the authority have to be obtained for the purpose.” 29. If the land has been allotted to the unit as a proprietary concern, the same may be changed into partnership or private limited or limited company, but prior consent of the authority have to be obtained for the purpose.” 29. Here, no document has been brought with regard to merger referred to in Para-9(A). 30. In-reply to the legal issues raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the applicability of JIADA Regulation, 2016 and that too with retrospective effect, it is submitted that the bills were raised by Annexure-10 and 10A and without any protest, the amount was deposited soon thereafter. Both the bills were raised on 18.03.2019 and the payment with respect to Annexure-10 was made on 23.03.2019 and with respect to Annexure-10A, the payment was made on 22.03.2019. 31. With regard to imposition of charges, but without hearing the petitioner, it was submitted that it was incumbent on their part to have filed a representation so that they could have been heard and order be passed after hearing them. Since no representation was preferred, therefore, stage for hearing does not arise. 32. The bond with respect to the lease hold area allotted to Usha Martin Industries was executed by the Executive Director on 19.05.1999 wherein by Clause iv it was accepted “that the debtor is held and firmly bound to Adityapur Industrial Area Development to pay the amount of money which would be found to in excess of the development cost already paid on the basis of the development for the land settled and also to pay the amount of money for such other dues as may be subsequently found to be payable by the debtor on the basis of terms deed of lease executed by the debtor”. 33. Merger of Usha Alloys & Steel Ltd. with M/s Usha Martin Ltd. took place on 01.06.1988 after due permission from JIADA on 11.06.1992 vide Letter No. 1543. However, for the merger of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. with M/s Usha Beltron Ltd. with effect from 08.05.1998, no formal permission was taken from JIADA which was clear violation of land allotment order. Appendix A and lease deed, so as per Clause 24(i) of the Regulation, 2016, full land cost was realized from the petitioner amounting to Rs.15,24,05,805.60. 34. However, for the merger of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. with M/s Usha Beltron Ltd. with effect from 08.05.1998, no formal permission was taken from JIADA which was clear violation of land allotment order. Appendix A and lease deed, so as per Clause 24(i) of the Regulation, 2016, full land cost was realized from the petitioner amounting to Rs.15,24,05,805.60. 34. Since Usha Martin Black (Wire Rope) Ltd. transferred the name to M/s Usha Martin Ltd. on 02.11.1983, as it was only the changed name of the unit, so it was not held to be a case of violation of land allotment order as per Appendix A and lease deed and hence, land cost was not realized from the petitioner. 35. Merger of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. with M/s Usha Beltron Ltd. with effect from 08.05.1998 without any permission from JIADA amounted to the violation of land allotment order, Appendix A and lease deed, so as per Clause 24(i) of Regulation, 2016 full land cost was realized from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.02,23,71,494,.40. However, in compensation, full land cost on the same company for 14.00 acres has been charged on the same ground. 36. With regard to validity of JIADA Regulations 2016, it is submitted that the petitioner had themselves requested for regularization of land by the answering respondents in 2019 on the basis of Clause 24(i) of Regulation 2016 for a claim of 15% in case of MSME or 25% in case of other premium of the land at the time of consideration and can grant permission for merge/demerge. 37. 134.86 acres of land was handed over by Industries Extension Officer of AIADA to the petitioner on 30.09.1997 which has been duly acknowledged on behalf of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. Further reliance is placed on letter dated 29th March, 2019 sent on behalf of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. to the Regional Deputy Director, JIADA for execution of land of 207.12 acres. 38. It is averred that under the provisions of Section 9(1) of JIADA Act, 2001 (Earlier Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974), the State Government had acquired land required by JIADA and then JIADA had allotted the subject lands in favour of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. and thereafter had given physical possession (request also made by the petitioner). 38. It is averred that under the provisions of Section 9(1) of JIADA Act, 2001 (Earlier Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974), the State Government had acquired land required by JIADA and then JIADA had allotted the subject lands in favour of M/s Usha Martin Ltd. and thereafter had given physical possession (request also made by the petitioner). It is also submitted that in accordance with Clause 1.6 and 1.7 of the allotment letters M/s Usha Martin had to get the Lease Deeds in respect of the concerned allotted lands within six months otherwise their status would be of a licensee only. As per the terms of allotment letters, M/s Usha Martin Ltd. also executed Bonds in Appendix-A format in favour of JIADA. In the bonds under Clause 4, M/s Usha Martin Ltd. has unequivocally admitted to follow all the terms and conditions of allotment letters issued in its favor by JIADA. 39. That Special Secretary, Department of Industries issued letter no.332 dated 21.01.1999 to respondent nos.2 and 3 which mandated that lease was to be executed by JIADA as per prevailing laws. 40. That the subject lands fall under the area of respondent nos.2 and 3 (JIADA now JIADA Adityapur region) and it had regularly been providing all the facilities/infrastructures such as connecting roads, drainage, street light etc. to the present allottee and the allottee has been regularly availing the same. 41. That even in the Conveyance Deeds dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure-8 of the writ petition), there is no mention of the facts that allotments were made by JIADA to M/s Usha Martin Ltd. and petitioner also had executed Bonds in Appendix-A as per the terms of JIADA and thereafter physical possession were also given to petitioner by JIADA because petitioner has suppressed the above facts in its letter dated 01.07.2003 written to Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan resulting thereof conveyance deed dated 14.10.2003 was executed. 42. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.2-3 that it has not been clarified or pleaded at any stage that they have not recovered the amount from purchaser (Annexure 10 & 10/1 of the writ petition). They have made recovery from the purchaser and again they are claiming from the State that will amount unjust enrichment which is against the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 . They have made recovery from the purchaser and again they are claiming from the State that will amount unjust enrichment which is against the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 . ANALYSIS 43. There are basically two demand notices both dated 18.3.2019 against the petitioner company which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. First is as a financial liability under Regulation 24(i) of Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations, 2016 in relation to 77.98 acres of lease hold land for past mergers and other arrears. Second, is with respect to the demand for past merger along with outstanding the land rent and land levy and processing fee for name change in relation to 207.12 acres of land claimed by JIADA as leasehold and by the petitioner as freehold. 44. The claim of Rs.55,50,01,913/-as financial liability for past merger along with outstanding land rent and land levy and processing fee for name change in relation to 207.12 Acres revolves the round the question whether it was Freehold or Leasehold land? 45. This Court is of the view that overwhelming evidence leads to an unresisting conclusion that it was a freehold and not a lease hold land. Some of the evidences that leads to this conclusion are as follows: a. On the request of the Petitioner to Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar land acquisition proceedings were initiated and in the notification it was stated that land was being acquired for public purpose which was industrial development of M/s Usha Martin by the Govt. of erstwhile State of Bihar. b. In the land acquisition cases the cost of land acquisition was paid by the Petitioner to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chaibasa (R-5) through JIADA (R-2) in November-December 1994. c. After the acquisition was issued to Usha Marting Industries Ltd. Both the allotment letters recorded that JIADA (R-2) would grant the lease of the allotted land separately in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame of six months from the date of each such land allotment order. However, no such lease of the allotted land was ever granted in favour of the Petitioner. However, no such lease of the allotted land was ever granted in favour of the Petitioner. d. Possession of the allotted land on payment to JIADA (R-2) approximately Rs.1,12,43,278/-being the increase in the then prevailing market value of the acquired land over Rs.1,24,82,336.45 which was the land acquisition cost that had already been paid by the petitioner to the Land Acquisition Officer (R-5). Petitioner paid the extra demand under protest and made a representation to the Government of the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar, which directed that JIADA (R-2) had no ground to charge any amount over and above the cost of acquisition of the land acquired. It permitted JIADA (R-2) to charge only 10% of the cost of land acquisition as administrative charges payable for its services rendered during the acquisition process as nodal agency. The excess amount was thereafter refunded. e. In 2003 the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Industries Government of Jharkhand, conveyed the Freehold title of the land measuring 134.86 acres and 65.40 acres by registered conveyance deeds dated 14.10.2003. The conveyance deed for the remaining acquired land of 6.86 acres was registered on 31.01.2019. All the conveyance deeds were signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella (R-4) representing the Governor of Jharkhand. After transfer, the land was duly mutated and rent is being paid by the Petitioner to the State. f. As no deed of conveyance had been made by the Government of erstwhile Bihar in favour of JIADA, therefore any lease could not have been executed by Respondent No.3. This has been expressly stated in the letter addressed by the Managing Director JIADA to the Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt of Jharkhand (Annexure A to the rejoinder CA dated 4.2.2021). Reference to execution of lease deed within six weeks in the allotment letter will have no bearing, as the said execution was never materialized, rather registered conveyance deed transferring title was executed. 46. What follow from the above is that title over the land was conveyed with the execution of the registered deed to that effect and no semblance of ownership remained with respect to the 207.12 acres of land with the State Government. Any financial liability imposed under the headings of rent or merger of the companies against the petitioner with respect to this land was beyond the jurisdiction of JIADA (R-2) and is accordingly set aside. Any financial liability imposed under the headings of rent or merger of the companies against the petitioner with respect to this land was beyond the jurisdiction of JIADA (R-2) and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner will however be liable to pay usual charges for maintenance of roads and providing other services. 47. Now coming to the question of imposing financial liability of Rs.29,28,56,844/-, on account of financial liability for the past mergers under Regulation 24(i) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 2016 (hereinafter be referred as JIADA Regulation) in relation to 77.98 acres of leasehold land, there is no dispute that land in question was lease hold land. This Court is of the view that Petitioner shall not be liable to pay the charges under the heading of merger, but cannot escape the liability from payment of rent and other charges for the reasons given below. a. Strangely it has been argued that the merger had not taken place as there was not order with respect to it U/s 394 and 395 of the Companies Act, whereas there is express admission in the pleadings of the writ petition that several intra-group corporate restructuring in the form of mergers concerning the seven companies within the Usha Martin Group of the petitioner who were allotted lease hold land, were undertaken under the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 from the period 1983 to 2001. Argument contrary to pleadings is impermissible. b. There was no provision for charges under the heading of merger in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 1974 which was in force when the said lease was executed and the mergers took place. Further, Regulation 24 of JIADA 2016 regulation cannot be applied retrospectively by creating financial liability against the Petitioner Company. JIADA regulations was published in Jharkhand Gazette (Extraordinary) on 06.12.2022 bearing Notification No. 576 (Annexure-A of supplementary affidavit of Petitioner dated 16.02.2023). Law in this regard has been settled in Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Kerala SEB, (2008) 13 SCC 213 : 21. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the State. It is also not in dispute that all administrative orders ordinarily are to be considered prospective in nature. When a policy decision is required to be given a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the State. It is also not in dispute that all administrative orders ordinarily are to be considered prospective in nature. When a policy decision is required to be given a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication. The authority issuing such direction must have power to do so. The Board, having acted pursuant to the decision of the State, could not have taken a decision which would be violative of such statutory directions. Collector v. K. Govindaraj, (2016) 4 SCC 763 13. As mentioned above, though the legislature has plenary powers of legislation within the fields assigned to it and can legislate prospectively or retrospectively, the general rule is that in the absence of the enactment specifically mentioning that the legislation or legislative amendment concerned is retrospectively made, the same is to be treated as prospective in nature. c. At the material time when the aforesaid leases were executed and diverse mergers took place neither the Act nor any regulations framed there under required the lessee to take permission of the Chief Executive Officer to realize any premium on the land at the time of considering the grant of such permission. d. Payment of demands cannot be a pleaded as Petitioner’s acquiescence or acceptance, as the same had been made under a protest. e. Other pleas advance on behalf of the answering Respondents are ornamental in nature and do not touch upon the merit of the case. 48. Claim made against the Petitioner which is an industrial undertaking, by the answering Respondent Authorities as instrumentality of the State raise certain disquieting and disturbing features. Financial liabilities have been imposed for freehold land treating them as leasehold land by the retrospective operation of JIADA Regulation, 2016 for mergers that took place about 18 years ago. In case of freehold land no rent could have been charged, but despite this it has been levied and realized. With regard to the lease hold land of the Petitioner Company, charges have been imposed for merger on the basis of Regulation 2016, giving it again retrospective operation when the said regulation was not applicable giving rise to an avoidable litigation. With regard to the lease hold land of the Petitioner Company, charges have been imposed for merger on the basis of Regulation 2016, giving it again retrospective operation when the said regulation was not applicable giving rise to an avoidable litigation. Instrumentalities of State are expected to act fairly and not act in an inequitable and rapacious manner which in the long run can stifle industrial growth. The age old dictum of “Collect taxes from a taxpayer just like a bee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.” Chanakya in Arthashastra, is still relevant in our modern time. Hon’ble Supreme court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 5. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner. 6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf. In the result, writ petition succeeds and the following reliefs are allowed: I. Claim raised, on account of financial liability for the past mergers under Regulation 24(i) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 2016 in relation to 77.98 acres of leasehold land is set aside. Petitioner shall however liable to pay the rent and other charges as the lease was made under the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 1974. II. A sum of Rs.55,50,01,913/-as financial liability for past merger along with outstanding land rent and land levy and processing fee for name change in relation to 207.12 Acres of land claimed by the Petitioner as freehold is set aside. The Petitioner shall, however, be liable to pay other charges like road maintenance for the civic amenities being provided by JIADA. III. Any excess amount paid by the Petitioner to the answering Respondent on the demand raised, to be refunded within three months of the order with 9% simple interest per annum on the Principal amount from the date of the said deposit. Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly. III. Any excess amount paid by the Petitioner to the answering Respondent on the demand raised, to be refunded within three months of the order with 9% simple interest per annum on the Principal amount from the date of the said deposit. Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.