Patna HC Declines Interference In BIADA Plot Cancellation, Says Disputed Facts Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction
Rushil Batra
4 May 2026 8:42 PM IST
The Patna High Court has held that cancellation of industrial plot allotment and forfeiture of deposited amount under the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) Act cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction when statutory procedure is followed and disputed questions of fact arise.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by M/s Imperial Private Industrial Training Institute challenging the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition.
The appellant had initially sought quashing of orders dated 08.03.2019 and 15.07.2019, whereby BIADA cancelled the allotment of a 10,000 sq. ft. industrial plot at Jehanabad and forfeited the entire amount deposited, along with rejection of its statutory appeal.
The facts reveal that the plot was originally allotted in 2012 for establishment of an Industrial Training Institute (ITI). Due to issues with the initially allotted plot, an alternative plot was provided in 2013. Although possession was handed over in 2015 after removal of a high-tension transmission line, the appellant failed to commence construction, citing non-approval of building plans and subsequent policy changes.
The appellant further contended that revised norms introduced by the Directorate General of Employment and Training (DGET) in 2017 requiring larger land area made the project unviable, and sought allotment of a bigger plot. However, the authorities cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposited amount, allegedly without complying with the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 6(2)(a) of the BIADA Act, 1974.
Before the High Court, the appellant confined its prayer to refund of the forfeited amount, arguing that no valid show-cause notice had been served, and that mere production of a dispatch register could not raise presumption of service in absence of postal proof.
The respondents, however, submitted that a show-cause notice dated 08.11.2018 had indeed been issued, and the appellant failed to respond. It was further contended that the appellant had not complied with the terms of allotment, including commencement of construction within the stipulated period, and had itself expressed inability to proceed under prevailing policy conditions.
The Court examined Section 6(2)(a) of the BIADA Act, which empowers the Authority to cancel allotment and forfeit deposited amounts upon failure of the allottee to take effective steps, subject to grant of one month's opportunity to show cause.
The Court noted that the records placed on affidavit indicated issuance of show-cause notice, supported by dispatch register entries, and that the appellant had not filed any rejoinder demonstrating submission of reply or contesting service effectively. Significantly, the Court held that the question whether the notice was duly served involves disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The Court observed:
“It is well settled that disputed questions of fact are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction.”
It further held that the learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that there was no illegality in the cancellation of allotment, particularly in view of the appellant's failure to comply with the terms and conditions and inability to proceed with the project.
Finding no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: M/s Imperial Private Industrial Training Institute v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 559 of 2025 (in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17448 of 2019).
Appearance: Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha appeared for the State. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and Mr. Gyan Shankar appeared for BIADA.