High Court declines writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal challenges BIADA cancellation and forfeiture.

The petitioner, M/s Coconut Agro Industries, challenged an office order dated 7 June 2022 issued by the Deputy General Manager, BIADA, Muzaffarpur Cluster, cancelling its allotment of 0.10 acre of land at Plot No. 60P, Industrial Area, Barauni, and forfeiting the amount deposited by it.

The cancellation was stated to have been made under Sections 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(b) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, as amended.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, under Section 6(2)(a) of the Act.

Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s industrial plot allotment and forfeiture of the deposited amount was maintainable when a statutory appeal was available under Section 6(2)(a) of the BIADA Act, 1974.

Whether the High Court should examine the merits of the impugned cancellation order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

Section 6(2)(a) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 authorises BIADA, in specified circumstances, to cancel an allotment and forfeit the amount deposited, subject to giving the allottee one month to present its case.

It further provides a right of appeal to the State Government within one month, with the appeal to be disposed of within two months.

The Court applied the settled principle that the High Court ordinarily does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly where the statutory appellate authority is competent to consider the petitioner’s grievance.

The relief sought directly challenged the cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the deposited amount—orders falling within the statutory framework of Section 6(2)(a).

Since that provision expressly provided an appellate remedy before the State Government, the Court held that the petitioner should first pursue the statutory appeal.

The existence of this efficacious remedy made it inappropriate for the High Court to examine the merits of the cancellation order at the writ stage.

The Court therefore left all factual and legal questions open for determination by the appellate authority.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, within four weeks from receipt or production of the order.

Any delay would stand condoned if the appeal was filed within that period, in view of the writ petition having been instituted in 2022.

The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing, preferably within three months of its filing.