HINDUSTAN TIN BOX INDUSTRY Vs. ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents and with their consent, this writ application has been heard at the admission stage itself and is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The order dated 8.12.1995 (Annexure l)'has been impugned by the petitioner, by and under which the respondents have cancelled the allotment of plot No. 13-B Phase. A prayer has also been made to unseal the factory premises and to restrain the respondents to interfere with the business of the petitioner.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, certain facts are necessary to be stated. According to the petitioner, for establishing the Tin Box Manufacturing Industry at Adityapur, he applied for allotment of the plot at the Aditypur Industrial Area Development Authority in 1970 and an area of 23400 sqr feet was allotted to the petitioner by an under dated 1.7.1972 and 7.10.1974. On 3.12.1975 a lease deed was expected for 99 years in between the authority and the petitioner and the possession of the land was handed over on 22.1.1973. The said allotment was in respect of a vacant land without any structure thereon and the petitioner constructed boundary wall, factory shed, plants and machineries etc. for carrying out its business and started its production in the year 1978. Further case is that as his business was totally dependent upon the performance of M/s. Indian Cable Industry. Jamshedpur and as business performance of the said Cable Industry deteriorated, business of the petitioner's unit was also affected, as a result of which there was substantial loss in production. It is admitted by the petitioner that due to sudden sickness of its industry, it was unable to make timely payment of its dues to the respondents. However, the petitioner regained its position and started its production upto 13.4.1996. Grievance of the petitioner is that without giving any reasonable opportunity, the authority cancelled the allotment of the plot resulting in huge loss to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that before issuing the impugned order dated 81.2.1995, the respondents did not issue any show cause notice nor had taken any step to get the notice served upon the petitioner even at the factory premises to enable the petitioner to submit its explanation. On receipt of the impugned order a detailed representation was submitted before the respondent No. 2 making those grievance but no reply has been given till date. However, the petitioner has agreed to clear of all the dues immediately.