SAFFRON EDU SOLUTIONS THROUGH ITS PORPRIETOR ULLASH AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERMENT OF JHARKHAND
WPC/6003/2024 · 2025-03-25
Rajesh Shankar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26474 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26474 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 W.P.(C) No.6003 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6003 of 2024
----- Saffron Edu Solutions through its proprietor, Ullash Agarwal, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Keshar Deo Agarwal having registered address at 107, Kamdhenu Complex, Joraphatak Road, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad-826001.
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 1st Floor, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Nepal House, P.O. Head Post Office Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority through its Secretary/Nodal Officer, 3rd Floor, JIADA Bhawan Namkum, Namkum Industrial Area, Lowadih, Namkum, Ranchi.
4. Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro Region, First Floor, BIADA Bhawan, Balidih, Bokaro Industrial Area, P.O.-Balidih, P.S. Balidih, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.......... Respondents. -----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Srijan A.C. to
Mr. Anuraj Vijay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C. to A.G. For the Res. Nos.3&4: Mr. C.G.A. Bardhan, Advocate -----
Order No.05
Date: 25.03.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Cancellation Order Nos. 876/2021 and 877/2021 issued by the respondent no.4 vide letter Nos. 876 dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) and 877 dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) respectively, whereby the said respondent exercising the power conferred under Clause 25 of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations, 2016’], has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the
2 W.P.(C) No.6003 of 2024
petitioner with respect to Plot Nos.A-54(P) and A-53 (P) situated at Kandra Industrial Area, Govindpur, Dhanbad (Bokaro Region-JIADA) having an area of 0.15 Acre and 0.10 Acre respectively. Further prayer has been made for quashing the public notice as contained in letter no.07 dated 4th January, 2022 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4, whereby fresh applications were invited for allocation of Plot Nos.A-53(P) and A-54(P) situated at Kandra Industrial Area, Govindpur, Dhanbad (Bokaro Region-JIADA) having total area of 0.25 Acre.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.695 of 2022 for the same relief but it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one.
3. Mr. C. G. A. Bardhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, at the outset, submits that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent No.2 against the impugned letter Nos. 876 and 877 both dated 01.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 in view of Clause 20(ii) of the Regulations, 2016, as modified vide resolution as contained in memo No. 3025 dated 16.08.2017 of the Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stge.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the respondent
3 W.P.(C) No.6003 of 2024
Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent No.2 against the impugned letter Nos. 876 and 877 both dated 01.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.4, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
5. The petitioner is however at liberty to prefer appeal before the respondent No.2 against the impugned letter Nos. 876 and 877 both dated 01.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.4.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/