Failure to honour a court undertaking and allotment conditions justified cancellation of the land allotment.

M/s Green Thermo Power Ltd., whose allottee was the petitioner, received approximately 10,000 square feet of land at Industrial Area, Pandaul, Madhubani, in 2017 and deposited the required security amount

After an earlier cancellation was set aside in C.W.J.C. No. 5175 of 2022, the petitioner undertook to make the unit operational, pay BIADA’s dues and comply with statutory requirements

BIADA subsequently cancelled the allotment by Memo No. 1027 dated 19 November 2022, citing non-payment of updated dues and failure to establish the industry; the petitioner alleged that she had not received a show-cause notice or the cancellation order

BIADA maintained that notice to pay the dues had been given, an inspection found no industrial activity, and the land had since been allotted to another entity

1. Whether BIADA’s subsequent cancellation of the allotment was liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice or otherwise, given the petitioner’s alleged compliance with the earlier court order and the allotment conditions.

2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance that the cancellation order had not been supplied to her affected the validity of the cancellation.

The Court relied on the petitioner’s undertaking recorded in the earlier writ proceeding, which required her to make the unit operational, clear BIADA’s dues and comply with statutory requirements; the undertaking also contemplated consequences in the event of default.

It further applied Clause 20 of the original allotment terms, under which failure to follow the prescribed schedule and timeframe was a ground for cancellation.

The judgment cites no specific statute, precedent or separate test governing natural justice.

The Court found, on the materials in BIADA’s counter-affidavit, that the petitioner had not complied with her undertaking and had produced no material showing that she sought further time from the Court.

The petitioner had neither paid the demanded dues nor made the unit operational within the prescribed time, bringing the cancellation within the consequences of her undertaking and Clause 20 of the allotment terms.

The Court also found that BIADA had sent the cancellation order by registered post and later supplied another copy on request; it held that the complaint about non-receipt did not affect the cancellation’s validity.

The subsequent allotment and transfer of possession to another entity further informed the Court’s conclusion that no ground for interference was made out.

Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.