M/S. VEDANTA FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE DWARIKA PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State, respondent Nos. 5 to 8, respondent No. 10 and 11 to 15 and respondent No. 16 and have perused the records of this case. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter/memo Nos. 1539/D, 1540/D, 1541/D, 1542/D and 1543/D all dated 24.9.2004, as contained in Annexure-26 series, issued by the Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna and further for quashing of the order dated 28.2.2006, as contained in Annexure-40, of the Appellate Authority (Industrial Development Commissioner) whereby the appeals filed against the aforesaid order of cancellation of plots and forceful vacation of the petitioner therefrom, have been dismissed. The present application was originally filed by one Ajay Kumar, Assistant Zonal Manager, M/s. Sterlite Foundation Trust. On objection having been raised on behalf of the respondents, one Interlocutory Application No. 3570 of 2009 was filed for allowing M/s Sterlite Foundation Trust to be represented through its Managing Trustee Dwarika Prasad Agrawal, son of late Laxmi Narain Agrawal as the aforesaid Ajay Kumar has already left the Trust. The prayer was allowed. Another I.A. No. 7748 of 2009 came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner informing that the name of the petitioner's firm, namely, M/s Sterlite Foundation has been changed to M/s Vedanta Foundation with the same address. The aforesaid interlocutory application was also allowed directing the petitioner to modify the writ petition. Some interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the interveners, in whose favour the plots concerned were subsequently transferred by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to be as "BIADA"), were also allowed and they were impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. I.A. No. 4954 of 2011 filed on behalf of the M/s Bank of India through its Regional Manager was also allowed vide order dated 20.7.2012 and Bank of India was directed to be impleaded as respondent No. 16.

(2.) Short facts that would be necessary for consideration of this writ application are summarized as under:--

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter of cancellation of allotment in favour of the five companies, apart from being arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal, also suffers from mala fide in law inasmuch as after accepting the proposal of the transfer of the plots of the five Companies in favour of the M/s Sterlite Foundation, there was no occasion for the BIADA to cancel the allotment itself in favour of the five companies made in the year 1967 and dispossess the petitioners. Learned counsel points out that M/s Shakti Sudha Industries was allotted the area more than what was applied.