D.N.UPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur (respondents 2 ) and Managing Director,M/s Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur (respondent 3) , to adhere to their own procedure for setting up an industrial unit in Adityapur Industrial Area and for issuance of allotment letter in respect of Plot no. M -10(P), phase IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, having an area of 3.48 acres in terms of the promises and assurances given, for which the petitioner has not only deposited the required amount towards cost of the land, but also made further investment acting on the basis of instructions of respondents 2 and 3. In view of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the apex Court in connection with SLP (Civil) No. 29324/2012, M/s Hardrock Fabrication (P) Ltd, M/s Hardrock Steel (P) Ltd and M/s Hardrock Auto(P) Ltd, through one of the director Dharamveer Singh, has filed IA No. 8470 of 2013 to implead them as respondents in the writ petition and after hearing the parties, above named three companies have been allowed to be impleaded as respondents no. 5,6 and 7 vide order dated 10.2.2014. After being impleaded, they have filed counter affidavit challenging the claim of the writ petitioner and also the validity of present writ petition.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the present writ petition is the third round of litigation between the same parties in respect of Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, having an area of 3.48 acres and, therefore, brief history behind the litigation is required to be reproduced which is as under : Industrial Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur was leased out in favour of respondent no. 4, M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd, Adityapur, for running an industrial unit. In due course, respondent no. 4 had incurred heavy loss and liabilities and the Director of the said Company miserably failed to repay the loan and other outstanding dues to different parties and the financial institutions, including the Bank, BSFC and the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as the AIADA). To come out from the financial crisis, respondent no. 4 had proposed to surrender the land and the industry in favour of respondent no. 5 and had taken considerable amount from said company. A deed of surrender was also executed by respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no. 5 and the transaction was duly communicated to respondents no. 2 and 3 for needful. It was contended by respondents no. 5 to 7 that notes were drawn for allotment of the aforesaid Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, in favour of respondent no.5. In between, respondent no.4 interfered and gave him a more lucrative offer and assured him to bear all the liabilities which the respondent no.4 had had at that point of time. To improve faith of respondent no.4, the writ petitioner had cleared the bank loan, loan obtained by respondent no.4 from BSFC and got the lease deed released. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 considering more lucrative offer, executed another deed of surrender in favour of writ petitioner for transfer of the land and the industry. Since respondent no.4 had executed two deeds, firstly in favour of respondent no. 5 and secondly in favour of the writ petitioner, litigation commenced with regard to re -allotment /lease against the plot in question i.e. Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur. In the prevailing situation, respondents no.2 and 3 have taken a different stand and cancelled the lease granted in favour of respondent no. 4 in respect of the aforesaid plot no. Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, by order as contained in Memo No. 1870 dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) invoking the provisions of section 6 (2) (a)(b) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1991, and forfeited the lease amount. Thereafter, respondents 5, 6 and 7 filed W.P. (C) No. 1213 of 2010 before this Court praying for setting aside the order dated 21.10.2009 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition, by which lease granted in favour of respondent no. 4 was cancelled by respondents no. 2 and 3. Further, prayer was made for issuance of appropriate writ/direction to respondents no. 2 and 3 for allotment of Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur in their favour, or other relief (s), as deemed to be fit in equity and law.
(3.) IN the said writ petition, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 1213 of 2010, present writ petitioner was also made a party and by filing counter affidavit, he has also raised his claim against allotment of said Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur, and contested the said writ petition to the best of his ability on the basis of the evidence and the documents created in his favour.;