- (1.) The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2553 of 2010 by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the order impugned dated 29.03.2010, passed by Respondent No.2 Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, has been declined to be interfered with by which the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner being Appeal No. 5 of 2009 challenging the order of cancellation dated 29.07.2008 passed by the Respondent No.3 Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, in short AIADA, as also refusing to interfere with the order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the Respondent No.3 by which the allotment of Plot No. 12(P), 5th Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur measuring 7,500 sq. ft. in favour of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge was cancelled and the amount deposited towards the cost of land has been forfeited.
(2.) The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated and which are proper for the lis, read hereunder as :- The land measuring 7,500 sq. ft. situated at Plot No. 12(P), 5th Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur on payment of Rs.26,980/- was allotted to the petitioner vide Allotment Order No. 367/ADA dated 12/13.03.1997. The possession of the land was delivered in favour of the petitioner on 21.03.1997. According to the petitioner, the factory plan as per the terms and conditions of the Allotment Order for approval in triplicate copies was submitted on 05.04.1997. The respondent AIADA issued a show cause notice dated 11.11.1997 to the writ petitioner and in response to the show cause notice, the writ petitioner made reply that three copies of factory plan were already submitted but as yet no decision about the approval of the aforesaid plan has been received and, therefore, no work could be done over the allotted land and as such, request was made to approve the factory plan at the earliest so that necessary action can be taken. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that similar requests were made on several occasions but no decision was taken. In the result, the purpose for which the plot was allotted could not be achieved due to non-commencement of the project because of the laches on the part of the authorities. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that all of a sudden the order of allotment was cancelled with the forfeiture of the earnest money deposited that too, without issuing any notice and as such the order of cancellation is not sustainable for want of violation of principle of natural justice and also for no fault committed on the part of the writ petitioner.
(3.) While on the other hand, the case of respondent AIADA as has been agitated by way of counter affidavit filed before the writ court is that the question of maintainability of writ petition itself was raised on the ground that the writ petition was filed by M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge through its partner Sri Ashish Agarwal and according to respondent AIADA since Sri Ashish Agarwal is not the allottee of the plot in question, rather the plot was allotted in favour of Smt. Geeta Devi as the Proprietor of the firm, wife of Sri Amod Prasad Ram, Proprietor of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridre, on 13.03.1997 and, therefore, Sri Ashish Agarwal through whom the writ petition was filed was having no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is the further case of respondent AIADA that the said Ashish Agarwal claims himself to be a partner of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge whereas the respondent AIADA has never allowed or permitted for change in the constitution of the firm which is the pre-condition as per Clause 7 of land allotment order as also in pursuance to clause 6(ii) of the lease deed and as such, as per the above clauses of the allotment order and the lease deed, if nature of the firm is to be changed, it is with the consent of the respondent AIADA but having not done so, the said Ashish Agarwal, who claims to be partner of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge, is having no locus to question the cancellation of allotment since the allotment was not made in favour of the partner of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge. Further ground has been taken in the counter affidavit that due notice was issued to Smt. Geeta Devi, the proprietor of the firm which was received by said Geeta Devi. It has been stated that after cancellation of the allotment, the said plot has already been allotted in favour of M/s. Vencon Industries after completing all the formalities but very surprisingly the new allottee M/s. Vencon Industries has not been impleaded party to the writ petition. Further, the order of cancellation has also been sent to Smt. Geeta Devi on the address of the Unit and was affixed on the wall of the Unit.;