- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2010 issued by the Deputy General Manager (T.A. -Land), Bokaro Steel Plant - respondent No.4, whereby the said respondent has regretted and informed that they are unable to execute a formal Lease Agreement in furtherance to the allotment order referred to in the said letter. They further advised the petitioner to furnish bank details, etc. so that the sum of Rs. 93,19,942/ - deposited by him can be remitted.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the said respondent No.5 had proposed to allot a plot of land in Sector -IV measuring an area of 21,780 sq.ft. on lease basis, for a period of 33 years, on deposit of a sum of Rs.93,19,942/ -within two months. Accepting the said proposal the petitioner arranged the amount and deposited the entire sum of Rs. 93,19,942/ -, receipt of which was acknowledged by the respondents by issuing a receipt. After accepting the said deposit the respondents did not execute the formal lease deed even after repeated requests and pursuation of the petitioner. Suddenly by the impugned letter dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure -19) they regretted and showed their inability to execute the formal lease deed agreement in furtherance to the said allotment. Mr. R.S Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on the proposal and assurance to lease out the aforesaid land, the petitioner had arranged the said heavy amount and had deposited the same in the hope of getting the lease for the purpose of construction of multi -storied complex, but the impugned letter has blighted the said plan of the petitioner and has caused him serious prejudice and irreparable loss and injury. The petitioner, in the hope of getting the lease, had changed his position by withdrawing the entire money from other accounts and projects. He could not take part in any other business which could have beneficial for him. He further submitted that once the entire amount of allotment was accepted and the petitioner was assured of granting lease in his favour and on that assurance the petitioner had changed his position and was in the hope of getting lease for the purpose of construction of multi -storied building, the respondents are estopped from withdrawing their promises.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that in any event sudden denial of the respondents, without any notice informing the reasons and giving any opportunity of representation or hearing, is arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice and the order, on that ground alone, is nonest.;