- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondent-Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (A.I.A.D.A.) by which the lease of the plot allotted to him has been cancelled vide Annexure-5 dated 31st March, 2005.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without any notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file show cause. The petitioner was allotted plot No. A-24, II phase in the industrial area of Adityapur in the year 1976. Thereupon a registered lease deed was also executed in July 1987 between the petitioner and the respondents. According to the petitioner he is engaged in the business of fabrication of auto body building, machines and fabricated items, steel furniture and repairing work etc. The petitioner's plot comprises an area of 45,000 sq. feet and he also took license from Factory Department in the year 1987. His plot was surrounded by boundary wall, machines were installed in January, 1994, however petitioner's lease was earlier also cancelled without any notice. The Patna High Court vide order dated 10.9.1997 set aside the order of cancellation. However, once again the impugned order has been passed without any show cause or notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also questioned the authority of the Managing Director under Section 6(2) of the Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 to cancel the allotment of plot as according to him it is the 'Authority' alone who has the jurisdiction and power to take action for cancellation of allotment of plot or lease of land. He has relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 7352 of 2007 Reported in , : 2008(2) PLJR 293. and other analogous cases. According to him it has been held in the said judgment that the powers of the Managing Director for allotment and cancellation of land under Rule 3(1) of 1981 Rules are only to the extent of initial allotment and cancellation and not beyond. This exercise of power vested in the Managing Director under the Rule cannot be read to confer on him an all inclusive power or authority exercisable under the Act much less Section 6(2) to cancel a duly executed lease after considerable time. Petitioner has annexed few documents in his affidavits to suggest that the petitioner has all through out been operating the unit and the contention of the respondents that the plot has been let out on rent is not correct on facts.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents-AIADA on the other hand seriously contested the ground for challenging the impugned order as being without notice or opportunity to show cause by relying upon the extracts of the peon book which are annexed in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the said extracts submitted that the petitioner had been served notice as is evident from the peon book on first occasion on 10.4.2000 and again on 14.12.2004 before passing the impugned order on 31.3.2005. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not been utilizing the plot of land having large area of 45,000 sq. feet for the purpose and object for which he was allotted the land. It is further submitted that petitioner has been letting out the property for use of other which is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the allotment of lease deed as also the Act of 1974. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the documents annexed to the pleadings of the writ petitioners shows that some of them are after passing of the impugned order. No reliance can be placed on the electricity bill which are annexed as petitioner has been allowing illegal tenants to use the premises whose consumption of electricity can easily be reflected in the electricity bills of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any document showing the compliance of Sales Tax, payment of Income Tax as also regular transaction showing functioning of the unit as claimed by the petitioner. Counsel for the Respondents has also submitted that the grounds for challenge to the authority of the Managing Director by the petitioner is no longer res integra in view of Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/s. TATA Steel vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 1 JLJR 188 in W.P.T. No. 6042 of 2008 dated 10.9.2012 wherein the order passed by the Managing Director of A.I.A.D.A. was under challenge on various grounds including the one which has been raised by the petitioner. By referring to para 36 of the said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent submits that authority of Managing Director in exercising its power under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1974 has been upheld in the matter of cancellation of allotted plot/lease of land of such persons like petitioner.;