JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. For issuance of appropriate writ for quashing Cancellation Order No.08/2012 dated 04/04/12 contained in memo no.286 (Annexure-6 to the writ application) passed by Respondent No.4 whereby and where under the land allotted to the Petitioner vide letter no 1287 dated 25/08/05 has been cancelled and the amount deposited has been forfeited. B. For issuance of appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing order dated 18/09/12 contained in memo no.460 (Annexure-8 to the writ application) whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against order dated 04/04/12, being Appeal No.09/2012 has been disallowed by Respondent No.2. C. For staying the operation of order dated 04/04/12 and 18/09/12 and maintaining status quo on the plot allotted to the Petitioner, that is at Plot No.141 PB, Tupudana Industrial Area, P.O Hatia, P.S Tupudana, District-Ranchi till disposal of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director of Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (now known as Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Ranchi Region) alleging that upon inspection, Unit of the petitioner was found closed and there were certain dues. It was mentioned in the show cause that the petitioner has violated clause-3 and 11 of the Lease Deed and it was also mentioned that if the dues are not paid, appropriate steps will be taken for realization of the dues. 4. Learned counsel submits that although show cause reply has not been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, but the same has been filed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. He submits that the show cause reply was filed on 12.10.2011 wherein it was mentioned that there was recession in the diamond industry and that the petitioner was not getting appropriate customers for purchase of cut diamond and consequently the number of working days were reduced awaiting improvement in the market condition and so far as dues are concerned, it was mentioned that the same will soon be cleared. 5. The learned counsel submits that although the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 mentions about the show cause reply filed by the petitioner, but the same has been rejected by simply stating that the show cause reply is not satisfactory. 5. The learned counsel submits that although the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 mentions about the show cause reply filed by the petitioner, but the same has been rejected by simply stating that the show cause reply is not satisfactory. The learned counsel has submitted that the case of the petitioner was apparently being considered with the case of other units and the show cause reply having not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2012, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed appeal being appeal No. 9 of 2012 and the grounds which have been mentioned by the appellate authority do not find place in the show cause notice dated 17.09.2011. The learned counsel submits that an inspection was conducted at the instance of the appellate authority wherein, interalia, a finding was recorded that out of the allotted area, only half of the land was being utilized. The learned counsel submits that the inspection report which was handed over to the petitioner and filed by the petitioner along with the writ petitioner, does not contain the signature of three members but the inspection report filed with the counter affidavit contains the signature of all the members. The learned counsel submits that the fact that at the time of handing over the inspection report to the petitioner, three persons had not signed and in the inspection report and the number of persons signing the inspection report handed over to the petitioner does not match with the with the number of persons signing the inspection report filed along with the counter affidavit filed casts a doubt upon the veracity of the inspection report. 7. The learned counsel has also submitted that even today, the unit of the petitioner is a running unit and if the authority conducts inspection, he has no objection. However, the counsel submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 has not considered the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and the appellate order contains many other reasons apart from what was mentioned in the show cause and is based on defective inspection report. 8. However, the counsel submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 has not considered the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and the appellate order contains many other reasons apart from what was mentioned in the show cause and is based on defective inspection report. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of allotment and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that the petitioner has not cleared the dues and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that initially a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating that unit of the petitioner was found closed and there are certain dues. It was mentioned that the petitioner had violated the clause 3 and 11 of the terms and conditions of lease and it was further mentioned that appropriate steps will be taken against the petitioner for realization of the dues. From the perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6, it appears that the petitioner had filed a reply explaining the entire circumstances as mentioned above. The impugned order has simply rejected the show cause reply of the petitioner as not acceptable, but has not considered the point raised by the petitioner in the show cause reply. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.04.2012 as contained in Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of non-consideration of the point/plea raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 12.10.2011, which is accordingly set-aside. 10. So far as the appellate order is concerned, it appears that the appellate authority had directed for conduct of inspection and the copy of the inspection report which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-7 contains the signature of only four persons out of seven persons. However, as per the counter affidavit the inspection report contains the signature of all the seven persons. However, as per the counter affidavit the inspection report contains the signature of all the seven persons. This aspect of the matter remains un-explained as to how the petitioner was handed over an inspection report which did not contain the signature of three persons out of seven and how, when and under what circumstances the three persons had put their signature on the inspection report. It further appears that the appellate authority has passed the impugned order primarily on the basis of inspection report and additional grounds which never formed part of the show cause notice. The grounds on which the appellate order has been passed are by and large different from the allegation which was leveled in the show cause notice. In view of the aforesaid findings, the appellate order dated 18.09.2012 also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which is accordingly set aside. 11. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to respondent No. 4 for passing fresh order in accordance with law and it will be open to the respondent No. 4 to conduct a fresh inspection in presence of the petitioner and also raise additional grounds, if so required on the basis of fresh inspection. 12. At this, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the successor in interest of the respondent No. 4 would be the Regional Director, JIADA, Ranchi Region. 13. The petitioner shall appear before the Regional Director, JIADA, Ranchi Region on 29.03.2023 at 11 A.M. Upon his appearance, the respondent No. 4 shall constitute a team for conducting fresh inspection in the premises of the petitioner. The inspection be done on 05.04.2023. 14. The petitioner shall also produce the various documents and materials as may be directed in writing by Regional Director, JIADA, Ranchi Region. The inspection report be also given to the petitioner on the sport and it will be open to the petitioner to respond to the inspection report and/or any point which may be raised by the concerned respondent. Thereafter the said authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of inspection and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed post. 15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. Pending I.A, if any, is closed.