STAR BOOTS COMPANY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 176 dated 7-.2-98 issued by the respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Jamshedpur (AIADA) whereby the allotment of the land which was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1993 has been cancelled.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was allotted a land by AIADA measuring an area of 12,436 sq. ft. in industrial area for the purpose of starting a project and a registration certificate was also issued for carrying on manufacturing activity of safety boots. Pursuant to the said allotment a registered lease deed was executed in the year 1995. It is contended by the petitioner that he started manufacturing of safety boots but in the meantime the petitioner went to USA for doing export import training courses. In the year 1997 the respondent AIADA issued notices for cancellation of allotment of land. The petitioners case is that although representative of the petitioner requested the authority to consider the case after return of the petitioner form USA but respondent No. 4 cancelled the allotment by the impugned order dated 7-2-98. After cancellation of lease the respondent entered into the premises and handed over possession of the land to respondent No. 5.

(3.) The respondents case in the counter affidavit is that although the petitioner started manufacturing activities but it continued till June 1995 and after that production was completely stopped. The petitioner constructed several shades and rented it to unauthorized persons and illegally collected rent from them. It is contended that after continuous closure of production and on not getting satisfactory reply from the petitions the respondent authority gave ample opper-the respondent authority gave ample opportunity before cancellation of the allotment. The, respondents further case is that on 1-4-98 the petitioner made an application and admitted that the unit was closed for more than 2 years and in response to the said application the respondent authority gave One more opportunity to regularize the allotment of land but nothing was done. ultimately the allotment was cancelled and the land was re-allotted to respondent No. 5.