SUDHIR FABRICATIONS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 25.08.2012 in Case No. 82/Koker I.A/2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petitioner has averred that, pursuant to application dated 28.08.1975, the respondent no. 3 issued letter dated 20.05.1975 allotting a piece of land admeasuring 21780 Sq. feet in the name of one Sudhir Kumar Singh. Thereafter, certificate of provisional registration was issued on 01.11.1975 in the name and style of M/s Sudhir Fabricator and it was allotted a certificate as small scale industry. A letter dated 20.02.1979 was issued by the respondent no. 5 containing terms and conditions in relation to lease period of 99 years. The sole proprietor of the petitionercompany died on 16.07.2012 and thereafter, order dated 25.08.2012 was passed cancelling the allotment of the piece of land admeasuing an area of 21780 Sq. feet as well as additional piece of land admeasuring 7519 Sq. feet which was subsequently allotted by order dated 20.02.1979.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a general notice was published on 16.07.2012 in a local newspaper in which the date of hearing was fixed as 29.08.2012 whereas, the impugned order has been passed on 25.08.2012 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that in identical cases, the notices issued to other writ petitioners were quashed by this Court and Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority has been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2013 and therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner dated 25.08.2012 is also liable to be quashed by this Court. It is further submitted that the impugned notice has been issued by the Managing Director, RIADA which is without jurisdiction. The allotment can be cancelled by the "Authority", a term which has been defined in the Act to mean Chairman, Managing Director and other three members and since, the impugned order has been passed by the Managing Director, it is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.