Appellate Court will not interfere with discretionary relief granted upon binding undertakings absent manifest arbitrariness or perversity.

Plot No. 6(P) and C-7 in Patliputra Industrial Area was allotted to the respondent in 1996 for a hand pump manufacturing unit

Despite the passage of several years and the benefit of a One-Time Amnesty Scheme in 2022, the unit remained non-functional during multiple inspections

Consequently, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) cancelled the allotment on 29.12.2022, and the subsequent statutory appeal was dismissed on 07.03.2023

The respondent challenged these orders via C.W.J.C. No. 4556 of 2023. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 11.08.2023, setting aside the cancellation based on a fresh undertaking by the respondent to commence production within 60 days

The appellants (BIADA) filed this intra-court appeal challenging that reversal.

1. Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the cancellation order based on a respondent's undertaking, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction

The Court applied the principles governing the scope of interference in intra-court appeals as established in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990), which mandates that an appellate court shall not substitute its own discretion for that of the first instance unless the exercise of discretion was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled law

Furthermore, it relied on Babu ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin (1980) regarding the legal sanctity and binding nature of undertakings given to a constitutional court, where wilful breach constitutes a serious offence

The Court reasoned that the learned Single Judge did not act mechanically but rather balanced the interests of industrialization with the rights of the allottee by imposing strict, time-bound conditions

The relief was deemed conditional rather than absolute, as the order explicitly empowered BIADA to resume possession and initiate contempt proceedings if the 60/90-day deadline for commercial production was breached

The Division Bench noted that since an undertaking to a court creates binding legal consequences, the appellants' fears regarding the respondent's past conduct were adequately mitigated by the judicial safeguards in the impugned order

The Court found no violation of the BIADA Act or mandatory regulations, concluding that the Single Judge merely "moulded the relief" in exercise of equitable jurisdiction

The Court held that in the absence of patent illegality or perversity, it would not interfere with the discretionary relief granted to the respondent

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed