1 CGHC010102772026 2026:CGHC:28348-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 315 of 2026 Shri Krishna Industries Through Prop. Karamjeet Singh Bedi (Partner) Aged 55 Years R/o 69/9, Nehru Nager (West) Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary Department Of Industries Atal Nager Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director Directorate Of Industries Udyog Bhawan, Ringh Road No.1, Ravi Gram, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chief General Manager District Trade And Industries Centre Durg District Durg (C.G.) 5. Ajay Industries Through Prop. Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Sajan Kumar Agarwal Aged 47 Years R/o Office Gat Shop No. 12, Sector 1, Zone-2 Khursipaar Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.09 18:33:33 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .07.2026 1. The matter is listed today for consideration of the office objections. The same are overruled. 2. Heard Mr. Anurag Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, and Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4187 of 2022 and analogous matters, the leading case being WPC No. 4934 of 2022 (Shri Krishna Industries v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petitions came to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an entrepreneur who was lawfully allotted Industrial Unit No. 19/C by the 3 respondent authorities for a total premium of Rs. 90,74,420/-. Pursuant to the allotment, the appellant deposited the entire premium amount in accordance with the applicable rules and the respondents accordingly issued a Letter of Intent in the year 2020. However, despite the appellant having fully complied with all the terms and conditions of allotment, the respondent authorities, by adopting an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power, cancelled the appellant's allotment without any legal justification. 5. It is further submits by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that, thereafter, in August, 2022, the very same Industrial Unit No. 19/C was allotted to respondent No. 5 for a meagre premium of Rs.8,28,566/-, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 83 lakhs to the State exchequer. It is submitted that the respondent authorities deliberately described the property as a "Bhukhand" (plot of land) in the allotment order issued in favour of respondent No. 5, whereas in fact the property is a fully developed industrial unit comprising an office building and boundary wall. According to the appellant, such misdescription was intentionally made only to facilitate allotment of the industrial unit to respondent No. 5 at an exceptionally low premium for a lease period of 99 years. He further submitted that the respondent authorities cancelled the appellant's allotment by referring to the pendency of a writ petition and thereafter cancelled the lease deed after a period of about six months. It is argued that there was no judicial order staying the allotment of the industrial unit or restraining the respondents from executing the lease in favour of the appellant. Despite there being no such restraint order, the respondents cancelled the appellant's allotment and subsequently allotted the same industrial unit to respondent No. 5 after nearly two years, which clearly 4 demonstrates arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the case of Satna Minerals stood on an entirely different footing from that of Ajay Industries. It is contended that the Letter of Intent in favour of Satna Minerals had been executed in the year 2013 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land and Building Management Rules, 2008, whereas the Letter of Intent in favour of Ajay Industries was issued in the year 2023. The appellant's case, however, relates to the year 2020, when the appellant had already deposited the entire premium amount and had acquired valuable rights pursuant to the Letter of Intent. Therefore, according to the appellant, the reliance placed upon the case of Satna Minerals was wholly misplaced and the learned Single Judge failed to consider this material distinction while dismissing the writ petition. He also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly examine the legal issues arising in the case and, despite noticing the discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellant, declined to grant any relief. It is contended that the impugned judgment overlooks the settled principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that the appellant has been subjected to arbitrary action at the hands of the District Trade and Industries authorities, causing substantial financial loss and hardship. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the prejudice suffered by the appellant on account of such arbitrary administrative action. 5 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the District Trade Centre, Durg, cancelling the appellant's allotment was itself vague and arbitrary. It is contended that the deficiencies in the said order were subsequently noticed by the higher authorities, resulting in corrections being carried out, thereby demonstrating that the original order itself was unsustainable in law. He further stated that even after the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, respondent No. 5 failed to deposit the premium amount in accordance with the applicable rules. Despite such default on the part of respondent No. 5, the authorities continued to extend undue favour to respondent No. 5, thereby acting in a manner violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also submits that the principal grievance of the appellant throughout has been that the property in question was not a vacant "Bhukhand" but an existing industrial unit, which was deliberately described otherwise only to confer an undue benefit upon respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that the appellant had been allotted the same industrial unit in the year 2020 upon payment of Rs. 90,74,420/-, whereas the allotment was subsequently cancelled on mere apprehensions despite there being no subsisting stay order from any Court, and thereafter the same industrial unit was allotted to respondent No. 5 for a nominal premium. He would submit that prior to the issuance of the Letter of Intent in favour of Ajay Industries in the year 2023, the appellant had already been granted a Letter of Intent in 2020. It is contended that the respondent authorities deliberately withheld execution of the lease in favour of the appellant and waited for nearly two years before allotting the same industrial unit to respondent No. 5, which raises serious doubts regarding 6 the fairness and bona fides of the decision-making process. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the matter the concerned authorities themselves directed payment of Rs. 93,16,344/- in accordance with the applicable rules. 8. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had filed WPC No.4187/2022 challenging the cancellation of the allotment and had also sought intervention in WPC No. 4934/2022, contending that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that, according to the valuation report, the value of the land itself was approximately Rs. 1 crore, which further demonstrates that the subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 at a meagre premium caused substantial loss to the State. He further submits that this Hon'ble Court had directed respondent No. 5 to deposit the premium amount in terms of the Rules, 2019 by way of an interim arrangement. However, respondent No. 5 failed to comply with the said direction. 9. Learned counsel submits that a writ appeal was thereafter preferred and, upon dismissal of the same, Review Petition No. 29/2022 was also dismissed in relation to the demand of Rs. 93,18,344/- by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. He also contended that the Directorate subsequently cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of respondent No. 5, whereupon respondent No. 5 instituted WPC No.4562/2023 challenging the said action. 10. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the appellant had lawfully acquired rights pursuant to the allotment made in the year 2020 after depositing the entire premium amount, whereas the respondents arbitrarily 7 cancelled the allotment without any legal restraint operating against them and thereafter allotted the same Industrial Unit No. 19/C to respondent No. 5 by describing it as a "Bhukhand" and fixing a grossly inadequate premium. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these material facts and legal issues and consequently deserves to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly appreciated the pleadings, the documents on record, and the applicable legal principles. It was contended that no error of fact or law had been committed warranting interference in an intra-Court appeal and that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and carefully considered the rival submissions. 13. The principal contention of the appellant is that after having deposited the entire premium amount pursuant to the Letter of Intent issued in the year 2020, the respondent authorities illegally cancelled the allotment and subsequently allotted the same industrial unit to respondent No. 5 at a substantially lower premium by describing it as a "Bhukhand". According to the appellant, such action was arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the cancellation of his allotment. 14. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge. The controversy involved in the connected 8 writ petitions was not confined to the cancellation of the appellant's allotment but also concerned the legality of the subsequent demand of differential premium raised against respondent No. 5 after execution of a registered lease deed and the consequential cancellation of such lease. The learned Single Judge has independently examined each cause of action and granted relief strictly in accordance with the rights which had accrued to the respective parties. 15. It is evident from the record that, unlike respondent No. 5, no lease deed was ever executed in favour of the present appellant. The appellant's claim rested only upon the Letter of Intent and the payment allegedly made pursuant thereto. The allotment in his favour came to be cancelled and such cancellation attained finality before any lease creating enforceable contractual rights could come into existence. Consequently, the appellant cannot claim parity with respondent No. 5, whose rights had crystallised upon execution of a registered lease deed and delivery of possession. The legal issues governing the two cases, therefore, stand on entirely different footings. 16. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that once a registered lease deed had been executed in favour of respondent No. 5, the respondent authorities could not unilaterally enhance the premium in the absence of any enabling contractual or statutory provision. Consequently, the demand notice dated 09.11.2022 and the cancellation founded thereon were held to be unsustainable. These findings relate exclusively to the rights flowing from an executed lease deed and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, revive or validate the appellant's earlier allotment which had 9 already stood cancelled. 17. The argument that respondent No. 5 obtained allotment at a lower premium or that the property was described as a "Bhukhand" instead of an industrial unit also does not advance the appellant's case. Even assuming such contention to be correct, the same would not automatically confer upon the appellant a legal right to restoration of an allotment which no longer subsisted. It is well settled that Article 14 embodies a positive concept of equality and cannot be invoked to claim a benefit merely because another person is alleged to have received favourable treatment. The appellant must independently establish a subsisting legal right capable of enforcement, which, in the facts of the present case, he has failed to do. 18. We also find no substance in the submission that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the distinction sought to be drawn between the cases of Satna Minerals and Ajay Industries. The observations made in the impugned judgment merely formed part of the overall discussion and were not the sole basis for dismissal of the appellant's writ petition. The dismissal of WPC No. 4187 of 2022 is founded primarily on the absence of any surviving enforceable cause of action in favour of the appellant and not merely on the applicability of any earlier precedent. 19. It is trite that in an intra-Court appeal, this Court does not reappreciate the entire matter as a Court of first instance. Unless the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are shown to be manifestly erroneous, perverse, or contrary to settled principles of law, appellate interference is not warranted. The appellant has not been able to 10 demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned judgment. 20. On a careful consideration of the entire material placed on record, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent and sustainable reasons while dismissing WPC No. 4187 of 2022 and allowing the connected writ petitions on their own independent causes of action. We find no jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. 21. Consequently, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan