Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Avishek Kumar, JC to the learned Advocate General appears for the State of Jharkhand.
(2.) THE petitioner, in the instant case, has challenged the communication/order dated 13.2.2002 as contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Managing Director of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as 'the authority'), whereby and whereunder the lease of the land measuring 2.00 acres being Plot No. M -50 which was allotted to the petitioner in the fourth phase for setting up an industry was cancelled in purported exercise of powers under Sections 6(2 -a) and (2 -b) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1991. The aforementioned two sections, according to Mr. R.C.P. Sah, were introduced by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 1991 which subsequently was enacted and in the counter affidavit it has been further stated that the aforementioned Act has now been adopted by the State Government and is known as Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Act. The aforementioned sections have been quoted in the counter affidavit at paragraph 11 and they read thus : - - "(2 -a) In case necessary effective steps are not taken within the fixed period to establish the industry, the authority shall in such condition, cancel the allotment of the allotted plot/ shed and forfeit the amount deposited in this connection. The authority shall, before canceling the allotment allow one month time to the, allottee to put up his case. The allottee on being dissatisfied with the order of the authority may file an appeal to the State Government within one month and the State Government shall, after due consideration dispose it of within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. (2 -b) The authority shall, after cancellation of allotment of the plot/shed take possession of the said plot/shed." Upon perusal of the aforementioned two provisions of law and reading the same in juxtaposition with the impugned order, the point that needs to be taken note of and/or considered is, as to whether the petitioner took necessary effective steps and as to whether the petitioner did not take necessary steps so as to attract the provisions for cancellation as stipulated in the aforementioned two sections. In order to adjudicate and/or find out the answer to the aforementioned question, it becomes necessary for this Court to delve into the facts.
(3.) ON 15.3.1997, it appears that pursuant to a proposal for allotment of land to the petitioner and as required by the authority, the petitioner deposited a Demand Draft dated 14.3.1997 for a sum of Rs. 3,13,390/ - being the value of the Plot of land so allotted. The photocopy of the said Demand Draft along with its forwarding letter are marked Annexure 1 to the instant Writ Application. Having received the aforesaid Demand Draft, the authority on the next month, i.e., 17.4.1997 allotted 2.00 acres in its fourth phase -the plot number being M -50.;