2026:JHHC:19272

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 4800 of 2021

Forum Infrastructure Private Limited, a Company duly

registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,

having its registered office at 4/1, Red Cross Place, Post Office:

GPO, Kolkata, Police Station: Hare Street, Town and District:

Kolkata (West Bengal), through its Authorised Signatory

namely, Sri Subhasis Seth, aged about 57 years, son of Late

Asit Kumar Seth, resident of 18/3, 1st Floor, Madhusudan

Biswas Lane, Howrah, Haora (M. Corp), Post Office: Howrah,

Police Station: Howrah, Town and District Howrah, Kolkata

(West Bengal). … Petitioner

Versus

1. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, through

its Secretary, having its office at Bikas Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.

Adityapur, District- Seraikella, Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development

Authority, having its office at Bikas Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.

Adityapur, District- Seraikella, Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

3. Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development

Authority, having its office at Bikas Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.

Adityapur, District- Seraikella, Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

… Respondents

……

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate

For the Resp.-JIADA : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. C. A. Bardhan, Advocate

……

CAV On: 02.04.2026 Pronounced On: 01/07/2026

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner; and Mr. V. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondent-JIADA.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner-Company, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:—

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction

quashing/setting aside the Office Order No. 9 of 2021

2026:JHHC:19272

2

contained in Memo No. 268 dated 14.05.2021 (Annexure-25)

issued under the signature of Respondent No.2 whereby and

whereunder the power of the Managing Director, Jharkhand

Industrial Area Development Authority, to cancel the allotment

of land has been delegated to the Regional Director of the

respective regions; AND

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction

particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the show-cause

notices contained in Letter No. 938 dated 09.08.2019

(Annexure-9), the show cause notice as contained in Letter No.

1224 dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure-12) and Letter No. 315

dated 22.02.2020 (Annexure-17), all issued under the

signature of Respondent No.3 and all its consequent

proceedings, including the order contained in Memo No.

54/C/AR dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-30) issued under the

signature of Respondent No.3, whereby and whereunder the

Respondent No.3 has cancelled the allotment order No.

772/ADA dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure-2), terminated the

lease deed dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure-3) and forfeited the

lease premium and the amount deposited by the petitioner

with immediate effect and further the petitioner is directed to

remove its material, if any, in the premises and handover

vacant physical possession of the plot in question of

Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur,

within one month from the date of the receipt of this order,

failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay penalty @

Rs.15.00 per square feet per month until it hands over vacant

possession of the plot to the authority or the authority takes

possession by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises

(Eviction and the Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as

provided under Regulation 22(vi) Jharkhand Industrial Area

Development Authority Regulation 2016;

(iii) A further issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction

commanding upon the Respondents to cooperate with the

Petitioner in grant of various permissions, including

sanction/permission of building plan/clearance/approval in

respect of the project to be developed on the land in question;

and

(iv) A further writ, order of direction declaring the lease in

favour of the petitioner subsisting and that the petitioner is

entitled to commence construction after grant of

sanction/permission/clearance of the building plan and all-

time deadlines under the deed to be computed from the date

of grant of sanction to the building plan as agreed the

Respondents; AND/OR

2026:JHHC:19272

3

(v) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as

may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice

to the Petitioner.”

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present lis, in brief, is as

under. The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority

(“AIADA”), the predecessor-in-interest of the answering

respondent (JIADA, Adityapur Region), invited a tender-cum-bid

on 04.09.2006 through a Request for Proposal for development of

a “City Centre” in the Adityapur Industrial Area, comprising a star

hotel, club, medical centre/hospital, multiplex, retail/shopping

mall, etc., the avowed object being to provide facilities to the

industrial entrepreneurs, the employees of the industrial

establishments and the public at large.

4. A consortium of three private companies submitted its bid

on 14.10.2006, which came to be accepted on 14.12.2006 with a

direction to incorporate a Special Purpose Company for execution

of the lease. The petitioner-Company was accordingly

incorporated on 24.01.2007 and the allotment order No.

772/ADA dated 26.03.2007 came to be issued in its favour for an

area admeasuring 21.698 acres on a 90-year lease-hold basis.

5. The physical possession of the demised plot was delivered to

the petitioner on 14.11.2007 and a registered Indenture of Lease

was executed on 02.06.2008. Under Clauses 4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) of

the lease deed, the petitioner had undertaken (i) to apply for all

necessary statutory permits within 120 days of taking possession,

(ii) to commence development and construction within 180 days

from the date of possession, and (iii) to complete construction and

commission the essential components within 36 months from the

date of possession. The petitioner had also furnished an

undertaking in Appendix-A to the lease deed to the same effect.

6. Indisputably, the petitioner did not complete even a single

essential component of the project during the said 36-month

2026:JHHC:19272

4

window. Beyond raising a boundary wall, no construction

whatsoever was undertaken on the demised plot. The respondent-

AIADA, after issuance of Notice No. 912/ADA dated 27.11.2013

and a personal hearing on 04.01.2014, cancelled the allotment

and terminated the lease vide Memo No. 35/ADA dated

15.01.2014, also directing forfeiture of the amounts deposited.

7. The said order dated 15.01.2014 was assailed by the

petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 690 of 2014. This Court, vide order dated

26.09.2014, quashed the order dated 15.01.2014 and granted the

petitioner a fresh construction-completion period of 36 months,

subject to deposit of 15% of the lease premium. Being aggrieved,

the answering respondent preferred L.P.A. No. 450 of 2014, in

which the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 15.04.2015,

while affirming the substratum of the learned Single Judge’s

order, enhanced the lease premium from 15% to 25% and, in

unmistakable terms, directed that the 36-month construction-

completion period would reckon only from the date of grant of

NOC by AIADA. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the

petitioner against the said order, being SLP(C) No. 29589 of 2015,

was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.11.2015.

8. In purported compliance with the said directions, the

petitioner deposited the enhanced premium of Rs. 2,78,00,000/-

on 21.11.2015. Thereafter, however, the petitioner conspicuously

failed to make any proper application for NOC; instead, it claimed

to have approached various unrelated departments such as the

Circle Office, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, etc., and

kept the matter dragging.

9. In view of the purported inaction of the petitioner, the

respondent – Regional Deputy Director, JIADA, Adityapur

Division, issued show-cause notice dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-

9), followed by show-cause notice dated 23.10.2019 (Letter No.

1224) (Annexure-12) and the final notice dated 22.02.2020

2026:JHHC:19272

5

(Annexure-17), inviting the petitioner’s response and granting it

personal hearings. The petitioner filed its response to the above

show cause notices vide its letters dated 21.08.2019 and

30.10.2019.

10. The Regional Director, JIADA, Adityapur Region,

thereafter passed the impugned order of cancellation dated

27.10.2021 (Memo No. 54/C/AR), cancelling the allotment order

No. 772/ADA dated 26.03.2007, terminating the lease deed dated

02.06.2008, forfeiting the lease premium and the amounts

deposited, and directing the petitioner to hand over vacant

physical possession of the plot within one month, failing which

penalty at Rs. 15/- per square foot per month would become

payable.

The petitioner has assailed the said order in the instant writ

petition.

11. It is also a matter of record that, during the pendency

of the instant writ application, the respondent-authority, on

17.04.2023, invited fresh applications for allotment of the

demised plot, and, pursuant to the online bidding held on

24.07.2023, and 38 bidders have already been declared

successful.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

12. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of

cancellation dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-30) has been passed

wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Regional Director

was not vested with any power to cancel the allotment of land on

the date when the said order came to be passed. It is urged that

the source of such power, i.e. the JIADA Regulation, 2016, has

not come into force. In this context, it was submitted that

Regulation 1.1 (iv) provides that the Regulations shall come into

force on such date as the State Government may specify by

2026:JHHC:19272

6

notification in the official gazette and since no such date has been

notified in the gazette, the Regulation of 2016 has not come into

force and therefore any action thereunder is without jurisdiction.

13. It has been further submitted that the publication of

the JIADA Regulation, 2016 in the Official Gazette on 29.10.2021,

does not satisfy the requirement of notifying. The date of coming

into force of the regulation as mandated by regulation 1.1 (iv).

Even otherwise, the publication of the JIADA Regulations, 2016

in the official gazette dated 29.10.2021, will also not make the

impugned order intra vires for two reasons; the first being, that

the date of publication in the official gazette is two days after the

impugned order of cancellation on 27.10.2021 and hence cannot

cure the defect of jurisdiction and secondly; the JIADA

regulations cannot be brought into force, retrospectively.

14. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel

for the petitioner has placed strong and emphatic reliance upon

the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Viraj

Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine

SC 101, wherein it has been held that a Notification issued under

Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,

1992 acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the

Official Gazette, and that the expression “date of this Notification”

must necessarily be construed to mean the date of its publication

in the Gazette, and not the date on which it was signed or

uploaded on a website.

It has been held therein that the requirement of

publication in the Official Gazette is not “an empty formality” but

a dual-purpose constitutional requirement, and that until such

publication, a Notification is a mere “intention” which has not

crossed the threshold to become a legal “obligation”. Applying the

said ratio, it is submitted that Resolution No. 3025 dated

16.08.2017, which conferred power upon Respondent No.3, i.e.

2026:JHHC:19272

7

the Regional Authority, AIADA Region, having been published in

the Official Gazette only on 29.10.2021, was non-est and

inoperative on 27.10.2021, with the result that the Regional

Director stood denuded of any power to pass the impugned order.

15. It has further been submitted that the primary

legislation that is the Bihar Industrial Area Development

Authority Act, 1974 and the Bihar Industrial Area Development

Authority Rules, 1981 have conferred on the Managing Director

of the Authority, the power to cancel the allotment of plots and

therefore, by virtue of the Regulations, such power cannot be

further delegated by the Managing Director of the Authority to the

Regional Directors. It has further been submitted that the power

sought to be conferred on the Managing Director of the Authority

to further delegate the power to the Regional Director, if the

Authority that is the Board of Directors so approve, by the

amendment to the resolution dated 16

th May, 2016, by the

resolution dated 16th August, 2017 are unenforceable as the

same is ex facie contrary to the primary legislation as also the

Rules made thereunder.

Moreover, such Resolutions have been issued by the

State Government and therefore cannot have the effect of

amending the JIADA Regulation, 2016, which has been framed

by the JIADA in terms of section 1 of the Regulations. It is thus

submitted that the Office Order No. 09 of 2021 contained in Memo

No. 268 dated 14.05.2021, whereby and whereunder the power of

cancellation of allotment has purportedly been delegated by the

Managing Director, JIADA, to the Regional Directors of the

respective regions, is ultra vires, bad in law and not tenable in the

eye of law and is liable to be quashed.

16. Further in this context, the Ld. Counsel by inviting the

attention of the Court to Section 15 of the BIADA Act, 1974 (as

adopted in the State of Jharkhand), contends that the Authority

2026:JHHC:19272

8

is empowered to frame Regulations only by a Resolution

published in the Official Gazette, and that the mandate of gazette

publication is a condition precedent for any such Resolution to

acquire the force of law.

17. It is further submitted that a subordinate/delegated

legislation can neither be amended; nor superseded, by an

executive or administrative order, and that an office order cannot

supplant, or whittle down, the power conferred by the

Rules/Regulations framed under the authority of law.

18. On the merits, it has been strenuously urged that the

delay in implementation of the project was neither wilful nor

deliberate, nor in any manner attributable to the petitioner. It is

submitted that, although the lease was restored by this Court vide

order dated 26.09.2014 (as modified in L.P.A. No. 450 of 2014),

the matter attained finality only upon dismissal of the Special

Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.11.2015, and

that within six days thereof, on 21.11.2015, the petitioner

deposited the enhanced lease premium of Rs. 2,78,00,000/-,

thereby demonstrating its bona fides.

19. It is further submitted that the project required a

mandatory Environmental Clearance as a precondition to

commencement of construction and approval of the building plan;

that, despite continuous and diligent follow-up, such clearance

came to be granted only on 26.10.2019, the process having

consumed nearly 1411 days; and that the petitioner cannot be

faulted for delays occurring within the governmental approval

mechanism.

20. It is contended that a meeting held on 05.09.2019

culminated in an understanding prescribing timelines reckoned

from approval of the building plan, and yet the show-cause

notices were not withdrawn but were instead followed by

successive notices generating uncertainty. In this context, it was

2026:JHHC:19272

9

also submitted that the judgement of a court cannot be read in a

manner to nullify the express provision of a legislation, which in

this case is the provisions related to the grant of clearances such

as the environmental clearances and Allied consents.

It was further submitted that the judgement of a court

cannot be read in a manner which would compel performance of

an act, which is otherwise illegal and unlawful. Therefore, it is

submitted that the failure to meet the deadlines set out by the

Division Bench of this Court would not so ipso facto result in

termination of the allotment/lease.

21. It is also submitted that the COVID-19 pandemic and

the consequent nationwide lockdown from March, 2020 severely

affected the functioning of the governmental machinery; that

technical glitch arose in the JIADA portal, in that the petitioner’s

name did not appear in the drop-down menu; and that, acting

upon the advice of the officials of JIADA, the petitioner submitted

fresh building plans in hard copy on 07.01.2021. Despite the

same, the lease came to be cancelled on 30.01.2021, which order,

upon challenge in W.P.(C) No. 1015 of 2021, was set aside by the

Managing Director, JIADA himself and the matter remanded,

whereafter the present cancellation order dated 27.10.2021 came

to be passed.

22. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned cancellation is

arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in law, that the

principles of natural justice stand violated, and that the lease in

favour of the petitioner remains valid and subsisting.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent-JIADA:

23. Per contra, Mr. V. P. Singh, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing

for the respondent-JIADA, while refuting the contentions of the

petitioner, has urged that under the scheme of the BIADA Act,

1974, the power to set up one or more authority’s vests with the

State Government by way of a notification, and such authority

2026:JHHC:19272

10

shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a

common seal. Further, under Section 14 of the said Act, the rule-

making power to carry out the purposes of the Act is to be

exercised by the State Government, by notification in the Official

Gazette. Learned Senior Counsel further states that the power to

make Regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act also vests

with the Authority, with the prior approval of the State

Government and by way of a Resolution published in the Official

Gazette.

24. He contended that by exercising the power vested with

the State Government, vide Resolution No. 1638 dated

16.05.2016 (published on 17.05.2016), it restructured all the

Industrial Authorities of Jharkhand, namely the Ranchi

Industrial Area Development Authority (RIADA), the Adityapur

Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA), the Bokaro

Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) and the Santhal

Pargana Industrial Area Development Authority (SPIADA), into

one single entity, namely the Jharkhand Industrial Area

Development Authority (JIADA), and each authority named above

was established as a regional office of JIADA, with the Regional

Directors reporting directly to the Managing Director-cum-Vice

Chairman of JIADA.

25. It is further submitted that Clauses 8 and 9 of the said

Resolution No. 1638 dated 16.05.2016 stipulate that the

respective existing Regulations of each of the four erstwhile

Authorities, namely the AIADA Regulation, 2015, the RIADA

Regulation, 2015, the BIADA Regulation, 2015 and the SPIADA

Regulation, 2015, being identical to each other, shall be known

as the “JIADA Regulation, 2016”. A bare reading of Clauses 8 and

9 of the said Resolution No. 1638 dated 16.05.2016 (published on

17.05.2016) clarifies that the JIADA Regulation, 2016 stood

notified in the Official Gazette on 17.05.2016 itself.

2026:JHHC:19272

11

26. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the substantive

power of cancellation of allotment is conferred by Section 6(2)(a)

of the BIADA Act, 1974 (as inserted by the Amendment Act of

1991), and by Rule 6(ii) of the BIADA/JIADA Rules, 1981 (re-

adopted in 2001), and also by Clause 25 of the JIADA Regulation,

2016, upon the Authority and upon the CEO/Regional Director,

and later upon the Managing Director after the notification of the

Resolution Memo No. 3025 dated 16.08.2017.

27. Further, he submits that, as per Chapter-II, Clause 2(x)

of the Regulation, 2016, the Authority/Board of Directors may,

from time to time, for the purposes of carrying out its duties and

responsibilities under the Act or the Rules made thereunder,

constitute a Committee or Committees consisting of its own

members and, if need be, experts from outside, and refer to them

such matters as the Authority/Board of Directors considers

necessary; the acceptance and implementation of the

recommendations of such Committees being subject to approval

by the Authority/Board of Directors. Similarly, as per Chapter-III,

Clause 3(ii)(c) of the Regulation, 2016, dealing with the Powers

and Duties of the Chairman and Managing Director. The

Managing Director is to “perform all duties and responsibilities

and exercise all powers vested under the Act and Rules made

thereunder and also that may be specifically entrusted by the

Authority/Board of Directors from time to time.”

28. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that

the Board of Directors, vide its 3rd Board meeting held on

31.10.2017 (Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit) under the

Chairmanship of the then Chief Minister-cum-Chairman, JIADA,

Ranchi — at which (1) Mr. Amit Khare, Additional Chief Secretary,

Planning-cum-Finance Department-cum-Director, JIADA, (2) Mr.

Sunil Barnwal, Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and

Geology-cum-Director, JIADA, (3) Mr. K. K. Son, Secretary,

2026:JHHC:19272

12

Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms-cum-

Director, JIADA, (4) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar, Director of Industries,

Industry Directorate-cum-Director, JIADA, and (5) Mr. K.

Srinivasan, Managing Director, JIADA, were present —

considered and approved the proposal for vesting/delegation of

power with regard to allotment of land by the Managing Director,

JIADA, to all the Regional Directors of the Authority, with the

result that all the respective Regional Directors of the Authorities

are now empowered with all works related to the allotment of

land.

29. Subsequently, in the 9th Board of Directors meeting

held on 26.03.2021 (Annexure-E) under the Chairmanship of the

Chief Minister-cum-Chairman, JIADA, Ranchi — at which (1) Mr.

L. Khiyangte, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue,

Registration & Land Reforms-cum-Director, JIADA, Ranchi, (2)

Mrs. Himani Pandey, Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance

Department-cum-Director, JIADA, Ranchi, (3) Mrs. Pooja

Singhal, Secretary, Department of Industries-cum-Director,

JIADA, Ranchi, and (4) Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Director of

Industries, Industry Directorate-cum-Director, JIADA, Ranchi,

Government of Jharkhand, were present — the proposal for

vesting/delegation of power with regard to cancellation of

allotment of land by the Managing Director, JIADA, to all the

Regional Directors of the Authority was placed and approved by

the Board of Directors, with the result that all the respective

Regional Directors of the Authorities can cancel the land

allotment order, as per Clause 5, Sl. No. 7 of the JIADA Resolution

Memo No. 3025 dated 16.08.2017. Further, vide Office Order No.

09/2021 dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-25 to the writ application),

the Managing Director, JIADA, delegated the power to all the

Regional Directors, including the Regional Director, Adityapur

Region, JIADA, to cancel the allotted plots.

2026:JHHC:19272

13

30. It is, thus, submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel, by also

placing heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in Adityapur Industrial Area Development

Authority & Anr. v. M/s. Sanderson Industries Ltd., L.P.A.

No. 174 of 2011, decided on 24.07.2012, reported in JCR 2013

(3) 622 : 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 1001, that decisions of the

Authority taken under Section 3(4) for its administrative working

and for the purpose of delegation of power do not require a

Resolution by the State Government, by way of gazette

publication, under Section 15 of the Act of 1974.

31. It has been further submitted that, even otherwise,

notwithstanding the aforesaid Board meetings, till the time the

subsequent publication of Resolution No. 3025 dated 16.08.2017

in the Official Gazette on 29.10.2021 was made, the power to

cancel the allotted plot remained with the CEO as per the JIADA

Regulation, 2016, and that the CEO and the Regional Director are

one and the same post, there being merely a change in

nomenclature.

32. It is also submitted that Clause 1.1(iv) of the JIADA

Regulation, 2016 (forming part of Resolution No. 1638 dated

16.05.2016, published in the Official Gazette on 17.05.2016)

saves all actions and deeds done under earlier orders, circulars,

guidelines and resolutions of the Government/Board, and that

Section 13 of the Act is a non-obstante clause.

Analysis

33. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties

and on perusal of the materials available on record, two principal

issues emerge for determination by this Court: —

(i) Whether the Regional Director, JIADA, was vested with

the power to pass the impugned order of cancellation dated

27.10.2021?

2026:JHHC:19272

14

(ii) Whether the petitioner is, on the facts and circumstances

of the case and on its own conduct, entitled to the discretionary

and equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India?

34. The first contention of the petitioner — that the

impugned order of cancellation is void ab initio for want of

jurisdiction in the Regional Director. In order to support the above

contention, the petitioner has relied upon Clause 1.1(iv) of the

JIADA Regulation, 2016 (Annexure-A/3 to the counter-affidavit),

which reads as under:—

“These Regulations shall come into force on such date as the

State Government may specify by notification in the official

gazette and shall supersede all earlier Government/Board

Resolutions, orders or Regulations, if any. However, actions

/deeds under earlier orders / circulars / guidelines /

resolutions of Government / Board shall be

valid.” …….. [emphasis supplied]

35. By an order dated 23 April 2024, this court specifically

directed the counsel appearing for JIADA to place on record the

notification issued in terms of the above clause 1.1 (iv) of the

JIADA Regulations, but despite lapse of more than two years, the

respondents have not brought any such notification and therefore

it is established that the notification regarding the coming into

force of the Regulations of 2016 have not been published in any

official gazette.

36. The JIADA Regulations is a conditional legislation. In

absence of any appointed date, the same cannot be said to have

come into force only by virtue of the Regulations being published

in the Official Gazette dated 29 October 2021. Therefore, in order

to bring into force, the JIADA regulations, 2016, the State of

Jharkhand had to specify a date by a notification published in the

official gazette and mere publication of the JIADA Regulation,

2016 in the official gazette cannot be termed to be as sufficient

compliance of the mandatory provision of law. Thus, there is no

2026:JHHC:19272

15

cavil or doubt that the JIADA Regulations have not been brought

into force by the State of Jharkhand and hence any action taken

thereunder is non est and a nullity.

37. The respondent's counsel submitted that the power to

cancel the allotment was already conferred upon the Chief

Executive Officer (which was redesignated as the Regional

Director) in the year 2016 and therefore the subsequent

publication of the JIADA Regulations, 2016 in the official gazette

on 29 October 2021 would not make any difference on the

conferment of power or jurisdiction on the Regional Directors.

The above argument cannot be accepted in view of the

findings recorded in the previous paragraph that the JIADA

regulations have not been brought into force by the state

government by notifying the date in the official gazette. Unless

and until a legislation or a delegate legislation is given effect by

bringing the same into force; any action taken under the same,

would have no legal consequences and cannot be enforced by a

court of law.

38. The petitioner, in the alternative, has further submitted

that since the JIADA Regulations, 2016, were published in the

official gazette dated 29.10.2021; neither the impugned show

cause notice, nor the impugned order of termination of lease

dated 27.10.2021 can be saved from the vice of lack of

jurisdiction.

Reliance was rightly placed on the judgement of the

Division Bench of this Court, rendered the case of Managing

Director, RIADA v. M/s Narrow Structures, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar

1731, wherein at paragraph 15 it was held as under:

“15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the Regulations

shall come into force on such date as the State Government may specify

by notification in the official gazette and shall supersede all earlier

Government/Board Resolutions, orders or Regulations, however, the

actions/deeds under the earlier orders/circulars/guidelines/resolutions

of Government/Board have been protected. Learned counsel appearing for

2026:JHHC:19272

16

RIADA authorities could not produce the gazette notification to show the

date specified by the State Government from which the Regulations have

come into force. What has been produced before us is a copy of the

Regulations which has been issued under Memo No. 1637 dated

16.05.2016. It contains a direction that a copy of the resolution should be

sent for publication in the special edition of Jharkhand Gazette and also

be forwarded to the Government Press, Hinoo, Ranchi for its publication in

special edition of Jharkhand e-Gazette, but no copy of such gazette could

be produced before us and that apart, it is not disclosed from any

document produced before this Court as to what is the date chosen by the

State Government from which the Regulations have become functional. In

the absence thereof, it would be very difficult for us to hold that the writ

petitioners would be bound by the Regulations. Apart from the above, it

appears that the resolution has finally been issued under Memo No. 1637

dated 16.05.2016 and there is no clause therein making it operational with

retrospective effect. As such, since the direction was given by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal to RIADA for executing the lease deed in favour of the

auction purchaser for the remaining period of lease by order dated.

02.03.2015 itself and the RIADA authorities sat tight over the matter and

even not challenged it before the competent forum and further, since the

direction was issued in terms of the earlier lease-deed itself, if would be

very difficult to hold that the Regulations would act retrospectively to cover

the writ petitioners. What the learned counsel for RIADA wants to say is

that even though the RIADA did not challenge the order of Debts Recovery

Tribunal and it sat tight over the matter over the years, now since the

resolution has come, it would come to their rescue. This limb of argument

is not acceptable at all in view observations made hereinabove.”

Emphasis Supplied

39. Thus, in view of the binding precedent, it cannot be but held

that neither the JIADA Regulations have come into force; nor the

publication of the JIADA Regulations in the official gazette would

confer power on the Regional Director retrospectively.

On both counts, the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of

Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority to pass the

impugned show cause notices and the impugned order cannot be

upheld.

40. This, however, does not mean that the competent

authority, is denuded of its power to take a decision on the issue

as to whether the lease of the Petitioner should be continued or

cancelled. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned show cause

notices dated 09.08.2019, 23.10.2019, 22.02.2020 and the

impugned order dated 27.10.2021 all issued and / or passed by

the Regional Director, JIADA; the matter is remitted to the

2026:JHHC:19272

17

competent authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with

law.

41. Since the matter has been left open to be decided by the

competent authority in accordance with law, this Court does not

find it proper to deal with the impugned order on the merits; lest

the same shall prejudice the case of one or the other party and

therefore all contentions of the parties concerned are kept open to

be raised and decided at an appropriate stage.

42. It is further observed that since as a consequence of the

impugned order an auction process was conducted by the

respondents; however, by virtue of the order dated 4rth May, 2023

passed by this court in I.A. No. 4089 of 2023, the respondents

were restrained from allocating the subject land to a 3rd party, it

would be in the interest of Justice that the respondents, if the

competent authority pass the order against the petitioner, must

do so with expedition and try and conclude the process right from

the stage of issuance of a show cause notice and complete the

adjudication there on within a period of two months from today.

The respondents- AIADA, may continue with the same

arrangement of not allowing the subject land to any third party till

they take a final decision on the matter, and in the event, the

decision is in the favour of the petitioner, any amount paid by the

participants of the auction process must be refunded with interest

at the rate of 12% per annum and such amount of interest must

be realised from the petitioner.

43. Alternatively, if the decision will be against the

petitioner, the Respondent-JIADA shall proceed in the matter of

allotment to the respective 38 successful bidders by completing

the process.

44. In view of the above, the following order is being

passed:-

2026:JHHC:19272

18

(i) The JIADA Regulation, 2016 has not come into force in

absence of notification of the date of coming into force of the

Regulations, 2016 in the official gazette in terms of Regulation

1.1(iv) at the relevant period and the same was finally given

effect by the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary Published by

Authority dated 6

th December, 2022; whereby the Regional

Director was made competent authority.

(ii) The show cause notices dated 09.08.2019, 23.10.2019

and 22.02.2020, as also the impugned order dated 29.10.2021

cancelling the allotment, terminating of the lease and forfeiture

of the lease premium and amount deposited by the lessee-

petitioner are quashed and set aside on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction of the Regional Director, AIADA. Since, JIADA

regulations has not come into force, the order dated

14.05.2021 will not have any effect.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e.

Regional Director in view of Gazette Notification dated 6

th

December, 2022 to initiate the process against the petitioner

after giving it a fresh show cause notice and opportunity of

hearing. However, such exercise must be carried out within a

period of two months from today.

(1v) The timeline is an essence of this order. This observation

is necessary in the background of the factual matrix of the

case.

(v) The petitioner shall fully cooperate in the proceedings and

in no case shall take adjournments. It is made clear that if the

petitioner will take unnecessary adjournments, the competent

authority shall proceed in the matter and pass final order.

(vi) It goes without saying that the competent authority shall

not be prejudice by the findings and observations made in the

2026:JHHC:19272

19

impugned order dated 27.10.2021, which is quashed and set

aside.

45. In the event, the decision of the competent authority is

in favour of the petitioner, the amounts collected from the

participants in the auction process must be refunded with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum and such amount of

interest must be recovered from the petitioner.

46. Likewise, if the decision of the competent authority is

against the petitioner; the Respondent shall proceed in the matter

of allotment to the 38 successful bidders.

47. No order as to costs. This petition stands disposed of in

the above terms.

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

Dated: 01 /07/2026

Amardeep/

A.F.R

Uploaded on

01.07.2026