Statutory appellate authority must decide BIADA plot-cancellation challenges after providing the allottee a proper hearing.

The petitioner, M/s. Krish Polypack Pvt. Ltd., occupied industrial plots bearing Nos. C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5(P), measuring approximately 33,200 square feet, in the Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna.

BIADA issued Memo No. 10 dated 3 January 2024 communicating an order dated 2 January 2024 cancelling the petitioner’s industrial plots.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation on the grounds that it had been passed without jurisdiction, that the power of cancellation vested in BIADA under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, and that the petitioner was carrying on manufacturing activity at the unit.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner relied on an earlier judgment in Civil Review No. 37 of 2025.

1. Whether the impugned cancellation order was invalid for having been issued or communicated by an officer lacking jurisdiction under Section 6(2) of the BIADA Act, 1974.

2. Whether the petitioner’s objections regarding the legality of cancellation, including the alleged ongoing manufacturing activity, ought to be adjudicated in the statutory appeal rather than in the writ proceeding.

3. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to approach the appellate authority, subject to consideration of limitation and protection against coercive action.

The Court applied Section 6(2)(a) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, which provides for cancellation-related powers and an appeal to the State Government against orders affecting an industrial allotment.

It relied on the clarification issued in Civil Review No. 37 of 2025 that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director may pass an order cancelling a lease or plot as a delegatee of BIADA, provided that the officer is authorised by a general or special order; the affected party must be given an opportunity to file objections, the matter must be considered on the basis of inspection reports and objections, and a speaking order must be passed.

The Court further applied the principle that disputed factual and statutory issues should ordinarily be examined by the designated appellate authority where an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

The petitioner’s principal jurisdictional challenge was substantially affected by the decision in Civil Review No. 37 of 2025, which recognised the authority of the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director to act as a properly authorised delegatee of BIADA.

Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate the validity of the cancellation order on merits.

BIADA submitted that the petitioner’s remaining objections—including the challenge based on its alleged manufacturing activity—could be examined in an appeal under Section 6(2)(a).

Accepting that submission, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, while ensuring that the appeal would be considered expeditiously, after a proper hearing and by a speaking order.

The Court also directed that limitation be considered sympathetically in view of the pendency of the writ petition.

The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority within 15 days from 3 August 2026.

If filed within that period, the appeal was to be considered and disposed of preferably within six months, after granting the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order.

The appellate authority was directed to consider the issue of limitation in light of the period during which the writ petition remained pending.

Until the filing of the appeal, BIADA was restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner.

The writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of, and the interim order stood vacated.