Dismissed

Satyam Alok v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jul 2014CWJC/11880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order cancelling land allotment and directing recovery of dues. The court held the application was premature and unmaintainable because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed as premature; petitioner allowed to file statutory appeal within 15 days for merit-based disposal.

Satyam Alok Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11880 of 2014

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Satyam Alok, s/o Indrajeet Kumar Lal, Resident of Mohalla Sanjay Chowk, P.O.+Police Station Dumra, District Sitamarhi.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Bihar through the Industrial Development Commissioner, Patna.

¶7

2.Bihar State Industrial Area Developmetn Authority, Patna. 3.The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

¶8

4.The Executive Director Bihar State Industrial Area Development Authority, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur.

¶9

5.The Area Incharge Industrial Area, Sitamarhi.

¶10

6.The Development Officer, Bihar State Industrial Area Development Authority, Regional Officer, Muzaffarpur.

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv For the BIADA : Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP21- Sanjay Pandey with Mr. Vivek Anand Amitesh AC to GP-21.

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 17-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following prayer made in this writ application:-

¶16

“For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the memo no. 243 dated 8.2.2014 (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the allotment of land of the petitioner has been cancelled by the order of Executive Director Bihar State Inustrial Area Development Authority, Regional Officer, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 4) and further order to seize the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner and also ordered to file a Certificate case for recovery of due amount.

¶17

For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding to respondents to accept dues amount and allow to run proposed industry over the allotted piece of land.”

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.11880 of 2014 (3) dt.17-07-2014

¶19

¶20

While learned counsel for the petitioner was absolutely sure that the case in hand is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2008 passed in C.W.J.C No. 7352 of 2007 and its analogous cases (Deepak Paints (P) Ltd. vs the State of Bihar & Ors), Mr. Piyush Lall on taking instruction submits that the case is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as, those cases covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Paints (P) Ltd (supra) were not only covered by lease agreement but there was a provision in such lease as with regard to cancellation of lease only by the Bihar State Industrial Area Development Authority (B.I.A.D.A.). According to Mr. Lall, therefore, whatever was held in the case of Deepak Paints (P) Ltd (supra) cannot be ipso facto made applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position on facts so far as the petitioner is concerned. He also admits that there was no lease

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.11880 of 2014 (3) dt.17-07-2014

¶23

¶24

executed between him and the B.I.A.D.A. He, however, submits that the ratio of the aforementioned judgment in the case of Deepak Paints (supra) shall be even otherwise applicable, wherein, the statutory remedy of appeal was held to be insufficient for non suiting a person whose lease has been cancelled.

¶25

In the considered opinion of this Court, once this aspect becomes clear that there is no lease in favour of the petitioner, his status cannot be the same as of the petitioners of the case of Deepak Paints (P) Ltd (supra) because entire interpretation and the rights of the parties in that aforementioned case of Deepak Paints (P) Ltd. (supra) was based on the clause of lease.

¶26

Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the Managing Director of B.I.A.D.A. and issued by the Executive Director. Against such an order there is provision of statutory appeal under Section-6(2a) of the Act before the State Government. The petitioner has however not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.11880 of 2014 (3) dt.17-07-2014

¶28

¶29

of appeal against the impugned order before filing this writ petition.

¶30

That being so, this writ application is premature and in fact not maintainable on account of nonexhausting of the statutory alternative remedy. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

The dismissal of this writ application, however, will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing statutory appeal and in case the petitioner files his appeal within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be disposed of on merits without non suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay/limitation, if any.

¶32

Ranjan/-
U

¶33

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

Satyam Alok v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Alok 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Braj Nandan Prasad Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sunil Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Magadh Construction Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Madhukaran Prasad Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Aditya Tele Infra and Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.