IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 2831 of 2016 ….. Pioneer Engineering Company ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents …..... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioner : M/s A.R. Choudhary, Amrita Sinha, Advs. For the State : Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, J.C. to S.C.V For the Resp-AIADA: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate For the Resp.No.4 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate … I.A. No.3421 of 2016 04/07.09.2016: The matter has been argued on the point of interim stay of the impugned orders dated 2nd April 2002 (Annexure-10) passed by Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA) bearing memo no.404/ADA and order dated 28 th April, 2016 bearing memo no.111/ACS/Ranchi dated 29th April, 2016 (Annexure-35) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.2). Through another interlocutory application being I.A. No.3422 of 2016 again a prayer for interim relief has been made by the petitioner seeking stay of the orders impugned noted herein above. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order dated 28th April 2016 and not to take any coercive steps pursuant thereto. The petitioner's allotment of Plot No. NS-1, Phase-1, measuring an area of 34,680 sq.ft. was cancelled by the order impugned dated 2nd April, 2002 bearing memo no.
404. That was the subject matter of the appeal filed by the petitioner only in 2012 being Appeal -2- No.34/2012. The learned appellate authority has, after giving due notice to the parties and upon consideration of their stand, arrived at the conclusion which are reproduced hereunder:- “Conclusions:- (i) The PECO (Appellant) is not doing any industrial activity at all. (ii) The PECO (Appellant) firm had received the show cause notices and had the knowledge of the impugned order dated 02.04/2002 also and as such the PECO (Appellant) cannot allege violation of principal of natural justice and also about not having knowledge of impugned order. (iii) The PECO (Appellant) has tried to deceive this court by filing forged documents with affidavit which alone desentitles him of any relief claimed by him rather makes him liable for prosecution against him. In that view of the matter respondent no.1 has passed the cancellation order observing and following the legal aspect of matter, hence cancellation order dated 02/04/2002 passed by respondent no.1 does not require any interference. So appeal is dismissed and respondent no.1 is directed to take steps in accordance with law against the units who are not doing industrial work as per report dated 18/03/2016 of the committee.” It has also taken into account the inspection report of the committee constituted by the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand dated 18 th March, 2016. The extract of the report incorporated in the findings of the learned appellate authority are also being quoted hereunder :-
“1. M/s Pioneer Engineering company was allotted 2 Acres of land in 1 st phase of N S1 vide land allotment order No. 351, dated 05/12/1962 by the state of Bihar. On 17/12/1962 an agreement was executed between State Govt. and M/s. Pioneer Engineering Company and in pursuant there to physical possession was given.
2. (a) M/s. Sokhi Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. is constructing BUCKET PRODUCT of earth moving equipment. Presently unit is doing industrial activity, 47,939.72 sq. ft. of land is in his physical possession. (b) M/s. Pioneer Engineering Company is not doing any Industrial activity in its occupied land of 3908.16 sq. ft., only cars are parked there which is used for official purposes. (c ) So far as M/s. Pioneer Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. is concern, unit is in physical possession of 35,272.12 sq. ft. of land in which two sheds are there, in one shed industrial activity was going on with the help of generator. There were only two- three labors were working. It was told by Mr. Tanbir Singh that Sri Garg is not allowing for electric connection hence he is not in a position to run the industries.
3. M/s. Sokhi Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. is working and he has submitted document of electricity bill, sales tax and income tax return. M/s. Pioneer Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. has also annexed the papers.” -3- On the other hand, perusal of the inspection report at Annexure-32, the affidavit of the respondents department sworn by Deputy Director dated 23th June 2016 and the counter affidavit of respondent-AIADA dated 28th July, 2016 sworn by the Industries Extension Officer, AIADA leave a question of doubt as to the allotment of plot in favour of respondent no.4 and handing over of possession to it since 2002. As is evident from the pleadings on record an area of 26,220 sq.ft. was allotted to respondent no.4 on 13 th January 1992 vide allotment order no. 107/ADA, possession of which was given on 25 th May 1992 and the other part of the land was allotted to PTPL on 13 th January 1992 vide land allotment order 106/ADA measuring an area of 26,220 sq.ft., possession of which was given on 24th April 1992 on the request of the petitioner, a partnership Firm. Rest 34,680 sq.ft. of land had remained with the petitioner. Order of cancellation of the allotment of petitioner was undertaken after noticing lack of industrial activity as per the stand of the respondents-State and AIADA after issuance of show-cause. Thereafter, it appears that on 4th June, 2002 project report of respondent no.4 was approved in the project clearance committee / land allotment committee meeting. It also transpires that a deposit of Rs.1,91,667/- was made towards the cost of the land by the respondent no.4 on 23 rd August 2002 and rest Rs.6,29,250/-, which is the evaluated cost of infrastructure of the petitioner, was deposited only on 11th September 2012. The affidavit of respondent-State at paragraph-16 refers to land allotment order no.812 dated 4th July 2002 in favour of the respondent no.4. However, the affidavit of respondent – AIADA at paragraph-14 states that land of petitioner measuring an area of 34,680 sq.ft. was not allotted to respondent no.4 though it refers to the approval of the project clearance -4- committee in its meeting held on 4th June 2002 of the project report of respondent no.4 for an area of 30,000 sq.ft. of land. Statements at para- 13 are to the effect that land allotment committee recommended that allotment order may be issued subject to payment of the cost of land and other dues. The affidavit of respondent-AIADA before the appellate authority, which is at Annexure-19, sworn by Industries Extension Officer Ekramul Haque son of Late Serajul Haque in the Appeal No.34/2012, on the other hand at para-7(ix) states that 34,680 sq.ft. was allotted by AIADA to M/s. Sokhi Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. vide order no.612 dated 4th July 2002. Respondent no.4 deposited the cost of land of Rs.1,91,667/- vide receipt no.26605 dated 23rd August 2002 but declined to deposit cost of assets over the land amounting to Rs.6,29,250/- on the ground that the constructed area has been received by him as per his share as senior partner of M/s Pioneer Engineering Company i.e. the petitioner herein. The said allotment letter dated 4 th July 2002, however, is missing and has neither been brought on record before the appellate authority nor in the present proceeding. Considering the aforesaid state of facts and the elements of doubt relating to allotment in favour of the respondent no.4, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology to constitute a committee of three officials; one from the Industries Department, other from the Cabinet Vigilance Department and the third from the AIADA, none of them being below the rank of Deputy Secretary to conduct an inquiry into the aforesaid aspect of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and submit a report on affidavit before this Court. The concerned Department of Cabinet coordination vigilance -5- would accordingly nominate the officer as requested by the Secretary, Department of Industries for carrying out the aforesaid enquiry. Petitioner as well as respondent no.4 may be given an opportunity by the Committee to produce documents in support of their claim. However, upon consideration of the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials on record, this Court is not satisfied that any interim stay of the order impugned as prayed for can be granted. Let it also be made clear that pendency of the writ application in no way should be meant to restrain the respondent authorities of the Department of Industries or AIADA to proceed in accordance with law in the matter pursuant to cancellation of petitioner's allotment. Let the matter appear after four weeks in the re-opening week after Dussehra holidays. Let a copy of the order be handed over to learned counsel for the State and AIADA. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/