M/S Premi Printing Press, Industrial Estate Ramchandrapur, Nalanda vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Premi Printing Press, challenged an order dated 13.06.2022 by the Joint Managing Director of BIADA, which cancelled the allotment of Plot No. N.S-3 (200 sq. ft.) in the Biharsharif Industrial Area. The petitioner's reply to a show-cause notice was allegedly ignored. Subsequently, an appeal filed by the petitioner against this cancellation was dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, vide an order dated 20.09.2022. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders. During proceedings, it was noted that possession of the plot had not been taken over by BIADA, and no third-party rights had been created. The Court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking regarding commencement of commercial production, making the unit operational, clearing dues (including GST and electricity charges), and complying with statutory requirements. BIADA was to recall the cancellation order upon acceptance of the undertaking.

Held

The Court accepted the undertaking filed by the petitioner, Shamimuddin, on 04.01.2023. This undertaking included commitments to start commercial production within 90 days of possession/recall of cancellation, make the unit 80% operational within nine months, clear all admitted dues to BIADA within four weeks of possession/recall, and clear GST and electricity charges. The petitioner also agreed to BIADA taking possession and losing all rights in case of failure, and being liable for contempt proceedings. The Court disposed of the petition on these terms, emphasizing that the petitioner was made aware of the consequences of breaching the undertaking. BIADA was directed to immediately recall the cancellation order and/or hand over possession within four weeks. The timeline for the undertaking's commencement was to be reckoned from the later date of order recall or possession handover. The Court reserved liberty for BIADA to approach the Court if the petitioner failed to abide by the undertaking.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 13.06.2022, cancelling the allotment of land, was passed without appreciating the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice and ignoring relevant law. 2. Whether the appeal order dated 20.09.2022, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, was justified. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was passed without considering their reply to the show-cause notice and in disregard of established legal principles. They sought the quashing of both the cancellation order and the appellate order. Revenue/State/BIADA's arguments: The judgment records that BIADA disputed the petitioner's claim that possession had not been taken over. However, it does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the cancellation or appeal orders, beyond the dispute over possession. The respondents ultimately agreed to dispose of the petition based on an undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner.