Disposed

M/S Ludhiana Hosiery v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 May 2023CWJC/6165/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition questioning the dismissal of an appeal against the cancellation of an industrial plot allotment. Instead of deciding on merit, the Court directed the petitioner to file a representation for an indulgence based on a similar Division Bench order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation seeking indulgence to establish the unit within a specified time.

M/S Ludhiana Hosiery Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6165 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

M/S Ludhiana Hosiery through its propreitor - Ranjit Kumar, Male, aged about 37 years, S/o DipLal Prasad, resident of village- Malahi, P.S.- Areraj, District - East Champaran, Motihari.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

¶9

The Joint Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority.

¶10

The Executive Director, South, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Regional Office Muzaffarpur Cluster.

¶11

The Deputy General Manager, Muzaffarpur Cluster, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The Area Incharge, Industrial Area Raxaul, East Champaran.

¶13

... ... Respondents

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the BIADA : Mr.Yash Raj Bardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vipin Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 01-05-2023

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in short the ‘BIADA’).

¶17

Petitioner, in the present case, is questioning the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar in Appeal No. 40/2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order of cancellation of the allotment of

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.6165 of 2023(2) dt.01-05-2023 2/3

¶19

industrial plot in the name of M/s Ludhiana Hosiery, Raxaul has been dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of assailing the impugned orders on merit, submits that the possession of the unit/plot has already been taken over by the BIADA but at this stage the petitioner is willing to file an undertaking that within 60/90 days from the handing over of possession by BIADA the petitioner will start commercial production and in case of his failing to do so, BIADA shall take-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises from the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel relies upon an order dated 31.01.2023 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18255/2022 (M/s Mahendra Ice Cream Factory Vs. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority). It is submitted that the case of the petitioner may be considered on similar lines.

¶22

Learned counsel for the BIADA does not dispute that the Hon’ble Division Bench order dated 31.01.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18255/2022 of this Court has attained finality, however, it is his submission that the said order is not a judgment on the merit of the case, therefore, no definite view may be taken in the present case on the basis of the said order.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.6165 of 2023(2) dt.01-05-2023 3/3

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the BIADA, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case as the petitioner is seeking only an indulgence as a matter of last resort to allow him to establish and run the industrial unit, the petitioner may, if so advised, file an appropriate representation before the BIADA which will be considered by the Managing Director of BIADA keeping in view the Hon’ble Division Bench orders of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18255/2022 and other similar matters.

¶25

It is expected that the Managing Director, BIADA shall take an uniform view of the matter in the light of the orders of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed from time to time in similar matters.

¶26

This Writ Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

¶28

Rajeev/-

¶29

M/S Ludhiana Hosiery v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ludhiana Hosiery v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk. Saddam Husaain @ Sk Saddam Vs The State of Bihar

Chandrika Ray @ Chandrika Pd. Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Parwej Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Anju Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Choudhary, Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Grand Engineering Works Vs The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority