In this Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court held that the cancellation of an industrial lease was lawful because the unit had not commenced production after over two decades, dismissing the appellant's challenge on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 104 of 2023
M/s Pandava Ceramic & Refractories, a partnership firm Tipudana, Ranchi. .. ... ... ... ...
Appellant
-Versus-
Doranda, Ranchi. Respondents
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
For the Appellant(s): Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Amar Kumar, AC to GP-I.
06/04.09.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Ananda Sen, J.)
O R D E R
This intra-Court Appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner whereby, the learned Single Judge has pleased to dismiss the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 4110 of 2014 on 3.2.2023.
unit by the Coal India Limited for supply of coal vide letter dated 14.3.1989 and the said coal linkage was renewed, but after 1993, there was no recommendation by the RIADA to the Coal India Limited to renew the coal linkage. It is the case of the petitioner that the unit was functional till 1993, but thereafter due to non-availability of coal, the unit could not function. It is also contended that the petitioner made several representation before the Managing Director, RIADA, but nothing happened. A notice was served to the petitioner in the year 2009, which was in respect of cancellation of lease deed seeking a show cause as to why not the allotment of land would be cancelled, as the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the lease and the unit is not operational. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice was challenged by the petitioner, but the petitioner was neglected by the Managing Director. He also submits that the Managing Director heard the case of the petitioner and ultimately vide order dated 21.2.2013, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that it is for the inaction of the RIADA, the unit of the petitioner could not function as the RIADA did not recommend for coal linkage, thus due to non-availability of the coal, the petitioner could not run his unit, resulting in closure of the unit. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. It is further submitted that all dues of BSFC has been cleared, but the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity by the RIADA to run the unit. He also contends that the intention of the RIADA should have been to promote the business and the industry, but in the instant case, they have deviated from their purpose and in one way has become instrumental in closure of the industry. It is his further contention that proper opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to re-start the business/industry. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to allow this Letter Patent Appeal by setting aside the impugned order and restore the lease in favour of the petitioner.
petitioner, and there was compliance of the principles of natural justice.
nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner unit was functional and the production has started. Merely having coal linkage for few months, would not mean that the petitioner had started production. When a unit become operational and starts production, there are several documents or evidence through which it can be established that unit is operational. Electricity bills, invoices of tax, sale voucher etc. are some of the proofs, but there is no documents to suggest that the petitioner had started the manufacturing process. 9. Be that as it may, there is specific finding by the authorities and the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has not commenced his business. This finding of fact cannot be re-apprised in a Letters Patent Appeal.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Anu/-Cp2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the cancellation of the industrial lease should be allowed.
Whether the finding that the industrial unit was never operational constitutes perversity warranting interference by this court.
Whether the Respondent was legally obligated to ensure coal linkage for the petitioner's industry.
M/s Pandava Ceramic & Refractories
Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (Now Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority)
The Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
