Ms Barnwal Masala Products Represented Through Its Proprietor Shyam Sundar Barnwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Barnwal Masala Products, was allotted an industrial plot in Bokaro Industrial Area in 1990, with possession given in 1991 and a Lease Deed executed in 1993 for 99 years. The allotment was cancelled by Respondent No. 4 (Regional Director, JIADA) on August 31, 2021, via Order No. 488/2021. The petitioner appealed this cancellation (Appeal No. 16/2021) before Respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Department of Industries), which was dismissed on May 2, 2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging both the cancellation order and the appellate order, seeking to restrain forceful vacation of the plot and to quash the impugned orders. The petitioner argued the cancellation was arbitrary and without proper opportunity to be heard, while the respondents contended that multiple show-cause notices and opportunities were given between 1993 and 2008, and again in 2021, for non-industrial activities and encroachment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing. It noted that show-cause notices were issued between 1993 and 2008, and a final show-cause notice was issued on 10.08.2021, followed by a press notice on 25.08.2021, asking the petitioner to reply. The Court also found that an inspection revealed the petitioner's unit was closed, which constituted a violation of Section 25 of the JIADA Regulations and the allotment conditions. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit Excise/VAT/GST returns as directed by the Court, which suggested the unit was not in operation. Therefore, the Court concluded that the cancellation of the allotment for non-use for the intended purpose was justified. The reasoning for dismissing the appeal was that the appellate authority had considered the facts and found the cancellation to be correct. The ratio decidendi is that an industrial plot allotted for a specific purpose must be used for that purpose, and failure to do so, coupled with a lack of response to show-cause notices, justifies cancellation after due process. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation order dated 31.08.2021 (Order No. 488/2021) issued by Respondent No. 4, cancelling the allotment of the petitioner's plot, was passed mechanically without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, thus violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 02.05.2022 (Appeal No. 16/2021) passed by Respondent No. 2, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order, was passed mechanically without appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was arbitrary and passed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of being heard. They also contended that the Lease Deed dated 24.07.1993, for 99 years, was still valid. The appellate order was also criticized for being mechanical and failing to appreciate the appeal grounds. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents asserted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities of hearing through various show-cause notices and letters issued between 1993 and 2008, and a final show-cause notice on 10.08.2021, followed by a press notice on 25.08.2021. They stated that an inspection found the unit closed, violating Section 25 of the JIADA Regulations and allotment conditions. The petitioner's failure to submit GST returns as directed by the Court further indicated non-operation of the unit.