Jharkhand High Court
Bhaiya & Bhaiya vs The Jharkhand Industrial Area ... on 13 April, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W. P. (C) No. 3063 of 2020
Bhaiya & Bhaiya, having its registered office at I/D-43/133 (P), Bokaro Industrial
Area, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro through its
Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Bhuwal Sharma, resident of Plot No.1-D-
77, Saran Iron and Steel Industries, Bokaro Industrial Area, Balidih, P.O. & P.S.
Balidih, District- Bokaro. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors.
.. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO [Through : Video Conferencing] .........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Resp- JIADA : Mr. Chandra G. A. Bardhan, Advocate
For the Resp.-BIADA : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh, AC
..........
10 / 13.04.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, Bhaiya & Bhaiya, having its registered office at I/D-43/133 (P), Bokaro Industrial Area, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro through its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Bhuwal Sharma, resident of Plot No.1-D-77, Saran Iron and Steel Industries, Bokaro Industrial Area, Balidih, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro, on 03.10.2020 for directing and commanding upon the respondents, particularly the respondents no.1 and 2 to transfer the proprietorship of lessee of Bhaiya & Bhaiya to M/s S. K. Engineering Works by changing the name and style of Bhaiya & Bhaiya to M/s S. K. Engineering works, on the basis of the prayer made in representation dated 12.08.2010 and its reminders dated 21.03.2012, 10.02.2017, 19.09.2019 and 10.02.2020 submitted by Bhaiya Pritam, Proprietor of Bhaiya & Bhaiya and the present petitioner before the respondent authorities.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that vide Annexure-3, the Secretary, Department of Industries, State of Jharkhand, has issued a notice inviting objection, but no body has placed any objection in such transfer, as such, it is incumbent upon the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (in short be referred as BIADA) as well as Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (in short be referred as JIADA) and the Secretary, Industries to transfer the name from Bhaiya & Bhaiya to Mr. S. K. Engineering Works Limited, as such, this Hon'ble Court may consider the same.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
-BIADA has opposed, the same and submitted, that a detail counter-affidavit has -2- been filed by the BIADA through Keerthishree G., D/o Gangaih, the Regional Director, Bokaro Region of Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (in short JIADA) on 29.03.2022 at Paras 5, 18, 19, 20, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 35 which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
5.That on 19.09.1990 a plot of land having an area of 20 decimals appertaining to Plot No.I/D-43/133(P) was allotted to M/s Bhaiya & Bhaiya vide letter no.2790 dated 19.09.1990 for the purpose of production of rolling shutter, profiles channel, coil spring and washers.
18.That on 13.09.1999 the allotment of land for the unit was cancelled by letter no.1288 dated 13.09.1999 since no industrial activities had been started on the allotted plot in spite of lapse of more than 9 years since the plot was allotted for industrial production.
19.That on 30.09.2000 this cancellation order was revoked with certain terms and condition by letter no.1410 dated 30.09.2000.
20.That on 25.09.2003 the unit made a request for change of constitution.
30.That office letter no.669 dated 27.09.2019 was issued to the petitioner firm stating therein that Permanent Registration Certificate/EM Part-2 or proof of Date of actual Production i.e. DOP has not been obtained by the unit. Office Letter no.1352 dated 05.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner firm for submitting the required documents but the same has not been submitted till date.
It is worth mentioning that in the absence of above documents change of constitution of the petitioner firm cannot be considered as per the provisions contained in Notification NO.3204 date 29.11.2013 of Government of Jharkhand and relevant provisions of JiADA Regulation, 2016.
32.That Sanjay Kumar Sharma is not the proprietor of the firm M/s Bhaiya & Bhaiya, as such representation by him as a proprietor of this is wrong and against the norms of JIADA.
33.That petitioner is not the proprietor of firm M/s Bhaiya & Bhaiya. BIADA has never given permission for change the constitution of the firm.
34. That letter no.1352 dated 05.11.2018 was issued to M/s Bhaiya & Bhaiya deposit the copy of lease deed and PMT/ EM No. Part-2. But the unit has not deposited PMT/ EM No. Part-2.
It is relevant to mention here that without obtaining PMT/ EM Part-2 or DOP change of constitution can not be allowed by the JIADA as per JIADA Regulations, 2016.
35.That it is only after submitting the PMT/EM Part-2 or DOP and a report regarding the functioning status of the unit that the change of constitution of petitioner firm can be considered, as per the norms of the JIADA [Regulation NO.21(v)] (Reference- Annexure-B].
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
-BIADA has thus, submitted, that it is surprising that initially the land, in question was allotted vide order dated 19.09.1990 having an area of 20 decimals of land of Plot No.1/D-43/133(P), to petitioner- Bhaiya & Bhaiya vide Letter No.2790, dated 19.09.1990 for the purpose of production of rolling shutter, profiles channel, coil spring and washers. The possession of the land, in question was handed-over to the petitioner firm in terms of Letter No.86 dated 14.01.1991. When no industrial activity was taken on, then a notice was issued to the petitioner firm vide Letter No.591 dated 08.04.1991, but no reply was given, then second show cause was -3- issued on 30.09.1991 vide Letter No.2033 dated 30.09.1991.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
-BIADA has further submitted, that thereafter on 04.11.1992, the temporary Registration Certificate was issued vide Letter No.2079 dated 04.11.1992 and on 18.11.1992, the Unit made a request to issue letter for raw-material. Accordingly, Letter No.2147 dated 18.11.1992 was issued to BSL for providing raw-material. On 10.05.1993, letter No.691 dated 10.05.1993 was issued to the petitioner-firm on account of not depositing the value of allotted land and since no production had been started and there was no industrial activity at all.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
-BIADA has further submitted, that on 09.06.1993, a fresh show cause notice was issued vide Letter No.900 dated 09.06.1993 and on 20.01.1994, another show cause was issued to the petitioner firm vide Letter No.94 dated 20.01.1994, but the unit demanded some more time for starting production vide Letter dated 20.01.1994. On 30.12.1995, a Letter No.1362 was issued for providing status of the Unit since the unit has written letter for issuance of permanent Registration number. On request of the Unit, the Industry Extension Officer, BIADA, inspected the unit and found that unit had not arranged the necessary infrastructure for production of the allotted items. Nothing was being done at all. Thereafter vide Letter No.1311 dated 12.10.1996, last show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as no industrial activity was started by the petitioner-firm.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
-BIADA has further submitted that on 05.05.1997, date and time was fixed for inspection of the unit on 12.05.1997 at 11.30 a.m., The unit was inspected and no industrial activities were found at the site on that date. Thus, on 13.09.1999, the allotment of land for the unit was cancelled vide Letter No.1288 dated 13.09.999 as the industrial activity has not been started on alleged plot in spite of lapse of more than 9 years, since the land in question was allotted for industrial purpose. The cancellation order was subsequently revoked with certain terms and conditions vide Letter No.1410, dated 30.09.2000, but even then nothing has been done after so much time, as it would be apparent from the aforesaid paragraphs, as referred above, as such, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere by directing the respondent-authorities to transfer the land in question in the name of M/s S. K. Engineering Works.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the BIADA has further referred Clause-19 as well as Clause 21 (v) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulation, 2016, which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
-4-19. TIMELINES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY/SHED i. The allottee shall start construction as per the approved plan within 6 (six) months, extendable to a maximum period of another six months, under extraordinary circumstances, with prior approval of the Managing Director21 from the date of approval of factory/shed or/and building plan22 of the allotted plot. In the event of failure on the part of allottee to do so, late action charges shall be recovered @ 1.00 per sq. ft. per month from the last date of extended period.
ii. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority shall organize annual inspection of all allotted plots to ensure its utilization. Detailed information compiled by the inspection team will be placed on the Website. The case of enterprises not utilizing the plot or inadequately utilizing the plot for the purpose, for which the allotment was made, Managing Director 23 shall take action for cancellation of allotment order of land or penalty equal to land premium or forfeiture of amount deposited by the entrepreneur towards land premium and other charges . After allotment and taking over possession thereof if a fully functional industry is not set up by the allottee within the stipulated period (two years for micro and small enterprises and five years for other enterprises) the allotment of land shall be cancelled and possession taken by Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority.
21. EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED AND TRANSFER OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS v. Vacant plot or units for which EM-II/PMT/SSI PMT/DOP has not been issued, shall not be considered for transfer. The allottee shall have to surrender the allotted plot to Authority under clause 25 of this regulation or Authority shall evict the allottee after following due process under this regulation.
Learned counsel has thus, submitted, that this Hon'ble Court may not interfere in such matter. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition may be dismissed.
Mr. C. G. A. Verdhan, learned counsel appearing for the JIADA has also supported, the contention of the learned counsel for the BIADA.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that for a long time, the petitioner- Bhaiya & Bhaiya Industry has not utilized the land for industrial purposes. Initially, the land, in question was cancelled which was subsequently revoked with certain conditions, but from the year 1990 and the revocation which took place on 30.09.2000, in such a long period, nothing has been done in this behalf, even no electrical connection nor there was an alternative supply of power. No industrial activities have been started. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed. Before parting with this judgment, this Court has taken serious view of the matter that respondents- BIADA has total 650 plots for Industrial activities, out of which, 160 units are not functioning as there is no industrial activities and out of which 73 plots have already been cancelled and for remaining 87 plots, action is being taken by respondents- BIADA as per the counter-affidavit.
Thus, this Court has reason to believe that the officers and the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand are not following the procedures and the conditions, laid down in Clause 19 of the JIADA Regulations, 2016, as above mentioned.
Under the circumstances, this Court directs the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand to verify all the industrial plots/areas and take appropriate action against non-functioning industrial units within a period of 60 days from the date of -5- production/ receipt of a copy of this order/communication by this Court and cancel the allotment which has been made, where no industrial activity has been started/no production has been started, the action should be taken in accordance with law, failing which, this Court may take appropriate action against the concerned respondent-authorities.
The Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand must submit a report within a period of 30 days thereafter before this Court about status of all the industrial plots/areas, in detail.
Office is directed to list this case after the desired report is submitted by the Secretary, Industries, State of Jharkhand.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, Industries, Government of Jharkhand through e-mail/ Fax immediately and forthwith.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/