Remanded

M/S Sarvashri Amal Engineering v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Apr 2011CWJC/2015/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench quashed an appellate order upholding the cancellation of a land allotment. Finding defects in the decision-making process regarding natural justice, it remanded the matter for a fresh show cause notice and a final decision within prescribed timelines.

What did the court decide?

Set aside appellate order dated 18.3.2009 and original order dated 23.7.2008; remanded to serve show cause notice within six weeks.

M/S Sarvashri Amal Engineering Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2015 of 2010

¶2

M/S SARVASHRI AMAL ENGINEERING WORKS, INDUSTRIAL AREA BARARI, BHAGALPUR THROUGH ITS PROP. AMAL KUMAR GHOSH S/O LATE DR. RAJNIKANT GHOSH R/O MOHALLATILKAMANJHI, BHAGALPUR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶3

Versus

¶4

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

¶5

THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-4

¶6

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-4

¶7

THE SECRETARY BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-4 5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAGALPUR

¶8

¶9

02. 29.04.2011

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority.

¶11

A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed

¶12

on behalf of respondents on or after 25.4.2011. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to state the specific date. Let the office endeavour to trace and place it on record. Copy has been served on the counsel for the petitioner. The Court therefore requested the counsel for the respondents to make available his copy of the same for perusal to consider the writ application for disposal at this stage, if possible.

¶13

The Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not the final decision itself. If the Court finds infirmity in the decision making process,

¶14

¶15

there is no need to dwell upon the facts of the case except to the extent necessary.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Appellate order dated 18.3.2009 declining interference with the original order of cancellation of allotment dated 23.7.2008. The controversy arises in light of a claim for execution of documents with regard to a claimed settlement for additional five thousand square feet of lands.

¶17

The petitioner specifically asserts that the original order dated 23.7.2008 was itself in violation of the principles of natural justice. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not deny this fact. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to persuade the Court from Annexure-C, dated 30.7.2008, that there was a recital that from time to time notice had been given. To this Court, that shall not suffice. No dates are mentioned. No details are mentioned, what was the subject matter of those show cause notice. The counter affidavit is silent and seeks to draw sustenance from an otherwise non-committal document. The Court is not satisfied, there has been

¶18

compliance with principles of natural justice.

¶19

No useful purpose shall therefore be served by remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority as the question goes to very root of the original order.

¶20

The appellate order dated 18.3.2009 and the

¶21

¶22

original order dated 23.7.2008 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Area Development Authority to serve a show cause notice upon the petitioner within a maximum period of six weeks from today. The petitioner is required to submit his reply to the same within a reasonable time that may be indicated therein or any extended time on a request made by the petitioner if granted. The authority in its discretion shall decide the same in accordance with law. Let a final decision be taken by the authority within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of such reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice.

¶23

The writ application stands allowed.

¶24

P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)

M/S Sarvashri Amal Engineering v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sarvashri Amal Engineering v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asgar Ali Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Prabesh Ray and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Arun Vs the Canara Bank and Anr.

Pulendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mahesh Mochi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.