Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Lamba, counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate.
(2.) Heard Mr. C.A. Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(a) For quashing of the memo no. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the allotment order as contained in memo no. 615 dated 31.05.2002 with respect to 10,000 square ft. of land out of 45,000 square feet of land allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled and further consideration value of the same has also been forfeited. (b) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 222 (Secretary) Ranchi dated 27.10.2008 issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation as contained in memo no. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 has been rejected without appropriately considering the case of the petitioner." 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- i. The petitioner was allotted 45000 Square feet of land vide allotment order, as contained in Land Allotment order no. 615/ADA dated 31.05.2002 with respect to Plot no. M-20 (Part) in Phase-6, Adityapur Industrial Area for the purpose of establishing industry and was handed over to the petitioner on 04.10.2002. (ii) Soon thereafter the petitioner started civil construction work and land development work and had invested about Rs. 14.50 lacs for the aforesaid purpose. However, due to unavoidable circumstances and paucity of fund, petitioner could not establish the industry within the time frame. The respondents vide letter no. 1054/ADA dated 25.05.2006 issued show cause to the petitioner, asking the petitioner to explain the reasons for non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the allotment order and another show cause was issued vide letter dated 17.07.2006 . In the show cause issued to the petitioner, it was mentioned that if the petitioner fails to give any satisfactory explanation then it will be deemed that they are not interested in pursuing the sanctioned programme and allotment order/lease deed of the aforesaid land will be cancelled and the deposited security amount will be forfeited and the AIADA will take necessary action for taking back the possession of the aforesaid land. (iii) The petitioner responded to the show cause notices vide letters dated 23.06.2006 and 28.7.2006 and explained that steps for starting the industry was already taken but the petitioner could not start the production for reasons beyond its control and made request for extension of time . Accordingly vide letter dated 1.9.2006 the petitioner was granted time till November 2006 and it was mentioned that if the petitioner does not start commercial production, steps will be taken for cancellation of allotment of land. (iv) Thereafter in the month of September 2006, the lease deed was duly registered vide lease deed dated 27th September 2006. (v) The counsel submits that immediately after execution of the lease deed, the petitioner applied for registration of the Unit as Small Scale Industry which was granted to the petitioner on 22.06.2007. (vi)The counsel submits that upon registration of the lease deed all the necessary steps like registration of the petitioner as Small Scale Industry Unit, granting electricity connection etc. could be taken. (vii) Immediately after registration the petitioner made all endeavour to start commercial production by which various steps such as grant of electricity connection, application for enhancement of load etc. was done and ultimately the unit of the petitioner came into production in the year 2008. (viii) Vide letter dated 05.07.2008, the petitioner was directed to appear before respondent no. 2 and explain as to why the allotment issued in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled for non compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment. It was mentioned that during inspection, it was found that no production was being made in the unit of the petitioner. (ix) Pursuant to this show cause notice, the petitioner responded subsequently vide letter dated 14.07.2008 and mentioned that the petitioner has already made investment of Rs. 14.12 lacs including investment cost on land, civil construction and plant and machinery etc. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 21.07.2008 and apprised that there is total investment of Rs. 51-52 lacs for the Unit and apprise the authority that the Unit is already under production. (x) Thereafter the petitioner was surprised to see that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1590/ADA dated 22.07.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the allotment with respect to 10000 Sq. ft. out of 45000 Sq. ft. on the ground that this portion of the land was not being utilized by the petitioner. (xi) Against this, appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 27.10.2008. (xii) Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the entire lease deed, there is no provision for partial cancellation of lease deed and he submits that admittedly the petitioner Unit was in production and only partial cancellation of lease deed has been done. The petitioner submits that rest of the portion are necessary for his production work and will be required to be utilized by the petitioner shortly. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2015 15 SCC 55 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held while interpreting similar clause as has been there in the instant writ petition that there is no question of partial cancellation as per clause of the lease deed. Learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 42 to 44.4 of the said judgment.;