M/S Dayal Products Private Limited Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3314 of 2024

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

M/S Dayal Products Private Limited registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, through its Director, Sant Lal Singh, GenderMale, Aged about 82 Years, Son of Late Nanhak Singh, Resident of Village - Sahdullahpur, Post Office - Sahdullahpur, Police Station - Ganga Bridge, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The Appellate Authority-Cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, through its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

¶10

The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

¶11

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

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar : Ms. Shashi Priya For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shashi (Advocate General) : Mr. Manish Dhari Singh (Ac to Ag) For the BIADA : Mrs. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 01-03-2024 1. Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of allotment dated 10.01.2023 passed by Deputy General Manager, BIADA, has filed the present writ application. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.3314 of 2024(2) dt.01-03-2024 2/5

¶17

by which the order of cancellation has been upheld.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted altogether 25366 sq. feet of land by the BIADA for running two units out of which on 13275 sq. feet, the petitioner is running a dal mill and on rest of the area, the petitioner is manufacturing packaged drinking water.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled on a frivolous ground that the dal mill plant was not functional and even electricity connection was also found to be disconnected at the time of inspection.

¶20

Referring to Annexure P/9, Page 95, learned counsel submits that on 29.01.2024, during the pendency of the review preferred by the petitioner, the BIADA held an inquiry and in the inquiry report, it is mentioned that dal plant of the petitioner is having machines installed there like elevator, captor, polisher, rounder. The unit is also producing 25 metric tonn per day out of the sanctioned capacity of 50 metric tonn per day. Dal is a seasonal product and during the season, the petitioner undertakes to produce maximum quantity of dal and shall definitely

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.3314 of 2024(2) dt.01-03-2024 3/5

¶22

reach the optimum level as sanctioned by the BIADA i.e., to the extent of 18,000 metric tonn per year. Referring to the review order passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel pointed out that though the authority has taken note of the inspection report dated 29.01.2024 but has rejected the review application after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any concrete plan nor he has shown any promising way forward in running the dal mill over the said land.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. Referring to Clause C of the allotment letter, learned counsel submits that the allottee cannot use the plot for the purpose other than what has actually been approved by the BIADA but the petitioner has been found using part of the dal mill area for manufacture of packaged drinking water which would be evident from show cause at Annexure R/6. Learned counsel further submits that no reply to the Annexure R/6 to the counter affidavit i.e., show cause has been submitted by the petitioner.

¶24

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3314 of 2024(2) dt.01-03-2024 4/5

¶26

that the petitioner shall demarcate the area of dal mill as well as manufacturing unit of packaged drinking water and no part of the dal mill area shall be used for the purpose of manufacturing packaged drinking water.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the rival submissions of the party, it appears that the dal mill is operational but it is not manufacturing the products to its allotted capacity. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the unit shall achieve the optimum level of sanctioned capacity of 18,000 metric tonn per year and approximately 50 metric tonn per day in average.

¶28

From perusal of the inquiry conducted by the BIADA on 29.01.2024, it is an admitted position that dal mill unit of the petitioner is producing 25 metric tonn per day. Clause B of the allotment letter says that if the unit goes into non-production and does not start reproduction within six months from the date of closure of the unit, the allotment is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has given categorical undertaking that dal unit shall be operational and shall increase its capacity to the sanctioned strength within six months period. The petitioner has also given

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.3314 of 2024(2) dt.01-03-2024 5/5

¶30

undertaking that dal mill area as well as packaged drinking water shall be segregated.

¶31

10.Considering the aforesaid, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be given opportunity to increase its production to the desired level. Allowing the unit to function shall be in the interest of industrial growth.

¶32

11.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 in memo no. 07/D as well as appellate and order in review are quashed. The BIADA is directed to open the seal put on the unit by it forthwith.

¶33

12.With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application is disposed.

¶34

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶35

HarshPandey/-

¶36

U

M/S Dayal Products Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dayal Products Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Kanti Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Master Munna Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Utkarsh Anand Vs The Induslnd Bank

Archana Mandal Vs The State of Bihar