2025:JHHC:12327-DB W.P.(C) No. 1683 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1683 of 2025 M/s RS Education Foundation Private Limited having its registered office at 29/1/A Chandra Nath Chatterjee Street, A Lp-U.G Ground Floor, P.O and P.S Chandra Nath Chatterjee Street, Dist-Kolkata, West Bengal 700025 through its authorized signatory, Mr. Bajrang Kumar Gupta S/o Ashok Sahu aged about 35 years R/o 21, Choreya, Chanho, P.O and P.S Chanho, Dist- Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Industrial Area Development Authority, through its Regional Director officiating from his office on the 5th Floor, JIADA Bhawan, Namkum, P.O and P.S Namkum, Dist-Ranchi. 2. Project Clearance Committee, officiating from its office at JIADA, JIADA Bhawan, Namkum, P.O and P.S Namkum, Dist-Ranchi … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. C.G.A. Bardhan, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 03.04.2025 Pronounced on: 25/04/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an email dt. 06.03.2025 whereby the petitioner had been disqualified from participating in the sale of a plot advertised for sale by the 1st respondent on the ground that its representative had appeared before a Committee constituted by the 1st respondent without proper authorization. 2. The 1st respondent had published an advertisement on 30.12.2024 for the purpose of allotment of available industrial plots in the State of Jharkhand through a single window system and in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure adopted by it. 3. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of plot no.1 in the Namkum Industrial Area, Ranchi along with a detail project report of its proposed project of the establishment of a BPO operations centre. 2025:JHHC:12327-DB W.P.(C) No. 1683 of 2025 4. On 21.02.2025, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that a meeting of the project clearance committee was scheduled to be held on 24.02.2025 in which the petitioner has to participate. 5. A representative of the petitioner reached the office of the 2nd respondent to participate in the meeting with the Project Clearance Committee, but he did not possess any letter of authorization issued by the petitioner. On that ground the petitioner’s representative was asked to leave the meeting and then the impugned email was issued. 6. It is contended that the email did not specify the agenda of the meeting to be held on 24.02.2025, and so fault cannot be found with the representative of the petitioner for not carrying a letter of authorization. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the said action of the respondent is arbitrary and that the representative of the petitioner who attended the said meeting was competent to act on behalf of the petitioner and had, in fact, requested for time to produce the authorization but he was not given time and he was asked to leave the meeting. 8. It is contended that neither the single window system nor the Standard Operating Procedure prescribe the requirement of a representative of one of the bidders to carry his authorization; and failure to carry the authorization cannot entail summary and immediate rejection of the proposal of the petitioner. 9. It is also contended that the email dt. 21.02.2025 did not mention the requirement of the authorized representative sent by a bidder should carry a letter of authorization. 10. We have noted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is indeed true that in the email dt. 21.02.2025 issued by the 1st respondent inviting the petitioner to participate in the meeting to be held on 24.02.2025, the purpose of the meeting is not mentioned. But the petitioner also did not ask the 1st respondent by a return email to indicate the purpose 2025:JHHC:12327-DB W.P.(C) No. 1683 of 2025 of the meeting, though the petitioner is based in Kolkata and the bidding was in Ranchi. 12. The counsel for the petitioner himself pointed out that under Clause 6 (c) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations, a closed-bidding process is contemplated if there is more than one applicant for a particular plot. 13. Had the petitioner any doubt of the purpose the invitation extended to it on 21.02.2025 for the meeting to be held on 24.02.2025, nothing prevented the petitioner to find out the purpose of the said meeting, and after sending its representative to the said meeting, it cannot turn around and say that the purpose of the meeting was not informed in the email of 21.02.2025. 14. Also, the petitioner is a business entity and ought to have realized that when its representative is going to meet officials of the 1st respondent in connection with application made by the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot, it ought to have given an authorization letter to its representative who was going to meet the officials of the 1st respondent for the said purpose. 15. In the absence of a letter of authority given to its representative, any understanding which he may arrive with the respondents in the said meeting would not be binding on the petitioner, and for that particular reason the respondents were entitled to take stand that such a person cannot participate in the meeting. 16. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. MM/-