Ravindra Jain vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's explanation for non-fulfillment of allotment conditions was not satisfactory. Specifically, paragraph 14 of the petitioner's explanation indicated that he found the plot allotment conditions inconvenient for setting up a manufacturing base and instead used a rented site for production. The Court found no clear explanation for the non-fulfillment of the allotment terms. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of orders passed in other petitions, as those likely involved valid explanations for non-compliance. The Court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order in its writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravindra Jain, was allotted a piece of land with the condition that within six months, he was to establish a 'Tinshed' and commence production. Failure to fulfill these conditions could lead to the termination of the allotment. The Joint Commissioner, District Industries and Enterprises Promotion Center, Ghaziabad, by an order dated January 13, 2021, terminated the allotment. The termination was based on the finding that the petitioner neither established a manufacturing setup nor obtained a GST number, nor secured electricity connection or NOC from the Pollution Control Board within the stipulated period. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition, arguing that the Joint Commissioner did not consider his reply explaining the non-commencement of production and that respondents' interference prevented him from fulfilling the conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 13, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner, District Industries and Enterprises Promotion Center, Ghaziabad, terminating the land allotment, is vitiated by non-consideration of the petitioner's reply explaining the non-fulfillment of allotment conditions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Joint Commissioner failed to consider his reply, which provided reasons for not commencing production. He also argued that interference by the respondents prevented him from fulfilling the allotment conditions, citing a notice at page 47 of the paper book. Furthermore, he submitted that this Court had previously intervened in similar matters where proper reasons were not recorded while dealing with an allottee's explanation. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding non-consideration or interference. However, the Court's analysis of the notice at page 47 indicated it did not reflect interference by the District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad, but rather apprised the petitioner of non-fulfillment and its consequences.