Ms Mahadew Metal PVT LTD Through Its Director Rohit Sinha vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahadew Metal Pvt. Ltd., was allotted 45,000 sq. ft. of land in Adityapur Industrial Area on lease in 1996. Physical possession was granted in November 1996. In October 2009, the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA) annulled the allotment order and lease deed. The petitioner appealed this decision in 2020, which was dismissed by the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, in March 2020. The petitioner challenged both the annulment order of October 2009 and the appellate order of March 2020 through a writ petition. The High Court directed the petitioner to file GST returns and electricity bills, and the respondents to file an affidavit on the status of the petitioner's unit.

Held

The Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders. The annulment of the lease deed and allotment order by AIADA was based on the grounds that the land was abandoned and encroached upon by anti-social elements, indicating non-use for industrial purposes. The petitioner's GST returns, except for specific periods in 2023-24 and 2026-27, showed zero production, and electricity consumption was also low, inconsistent with industrial activity on a 45,000 sq. ft. plot. Furthermore, the petitioner filed an appeal after eleven years, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the grounds of not starting industrial activity and non-adherence to the lease agreement. The Appellate Court also rejected the prayer for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the annulment of the lease deed and allotment order by the AIADA, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, were valid, considering the grounds of abandoned land, encroachment, and non-commencement of industrial activity. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner challenged the annulment order and the appellate order, seeking to quash them and praying for the production of official files. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the land was found in an abandoned condition and encroached upon, indicating the petitioner was not using it for industrial purposes. They also pointed to the petitioner's delayed appeal and the lack of industrial activity as evidenced by GST returns and electricity bills.