- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA) has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.1634 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Managing Director of AIADA vide order dated 5.9.2007 cancelling the lease of 5.92 Acres of land and allotment of 8 acres of land made in favour of the writ petitioner by the AIADA on 3.11.1985 and in the year 1993 respectively. So far as cancellation of allotment of land of 8 acres is concerned, that is not under challenge and that cancellation has attained finality so far as it relates to the allotment of 8 acres of land to the writ petitioner. 2008 (2) PLJR 293 and in the case of The Gait Public Library and Institute Versus The State of Bihar reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 585, the Authority has no right to cancel the lease and power of the Authority in the matter of cancellation of the plot is confined to the cancellation of the initial allotment and not the lease for which the Authority can avail the remedy by way of civil suit. Learned counsel for the AIADA has vehemently submitted that under Clause (d) of Section 4 of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act 1974, the Managing Director is full time officer and the Chief Executive of the Authority and is bound to perform amongst the others all the duties assigned to him which has been provided under Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 of the Act of 1974. Clause 4 (d) clearly provides that the Managing Director shall perform any order and duty that may be assigned to him by the Authority or the State Government from time to time. It is submitted that the Board of the AIADA took a resolution in its meeting of the Board of Directors on 24.12.2008 that the Managing Director of the AIADA shall be authorized to ensure compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment and lease of Industrial plots/ sheds. He has been given further power to initiate legal action in the matter of breach of terms of allotment and lease and pass necessary orders in terms of Section 6(2)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1974. Not only this, that such power was given to the Managing Director of the AIADA by resolution dated 24.12.2008, but it was further resolved in the meeting that all prior orders passed by the Managing Director stand ratified by the Board of Directors of AIADA. Therefore, after 24.12.2008, the Managing Director is vested with the powers referred in the resolution dated 24.12.2008 and the action taken by the Managing Director of the AIADA prior to that date has been ratified by the Board of Directors. Therefore, the Managing Director had and has power to pass the appropriate orders like the order under challenge and the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in holding that such power does not vest in the Managing Director of AIADA in spite of the fact that the resolution dated 24.12.2008 has not been challenged and has not been quashed. It is also submitted that the resolution has been misinterpreted and therefore it has wrongly been held that the power does not vest in the Managing Director for cancellation of the lease.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further submitted that under Section 6(2), the power has been given to the authority not only for cancellation of the allotment, but specific power has been given to the authority even to cancel the lease. In view of the above, the statutory power given to the authority, the lease also can be cancelled and it is not necessary for the AIADA to file a suit before the Civil Court for cancellation of the lease deed and for taking possession. 2011 (7) SCC 493.;