In Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. vs. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih delivered a 18-page long judgement dated January 23, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"...the impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge restored with the result that the present appeals succeed." It was heard along with State of Bihar vs. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(2026). The judgement was authored by Justice Datta.
Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi had passed the 18-page long order dated January 24, 2014 as a Single Judge.
Justice Datta observed:"We must also bear in mind the nature and extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court appellate Bench of a high court exercise. Such appellate jurisdiction is conferred either under the Letters Patent or by the relevant statutory provisions. It is pertinent to note that both - Single Bench and Division Bench - exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is warranted only where the judgment or order under challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from perversity. Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts, particularly where the view adopted by the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one. In other words, an intra-court appellate Bench ought not to substitute its own view, merely because such Bench considers its view to be better than the one taken by the Single Bench; so long as the view taken by the Single Bench is a plausible one, interference should stay at a distance."
Justice Datta observed:"11. It is trite law that the remedy of a writ is discretionary in nature. Even
where a writ petition raises a substantial point of law, the High Court may decline to entertain it for a variety of reasons. Inter alia, relief may be denied to the suitor notwithstanding the existence of a strong legal case should grant of such relief not serve or advance public interest. If interfering with an impugned order/decision etc. would result in more harm to society, the writ courts may decline to exercise its jurisdiction. The high courts, being the custodian of the Constitution, carry the responsibility to maintain social balance by its interference when justice
of the case so demands and in not interfering when such an interference would affect public interest. 12. The above principle has been reiterated in a catena of precedents...."
He added:"15. Bearing in mind the larger public interest that was involved coupled with the fact that the plot of land in question was sought to be reserved for establishment of an educational institution, we are of the firm opinion that dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for the Single Judge. The view taken by the Division Bench that BIADA lacked the authority to cancel the allotment though prima facie may appear to be appealing, yet, the same is debatable.
15.1 Applying the principles governing the exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, as laid down in the aforesaid precedents, to the facts of the present case, we observe that judicial discipline demanded due deference to the exercise of discretion by the court of first instance, particularly when such discretion was exercised on relevant considerations. The Single Judge having refused exercise of discretion on a ground which, in our opinion, is valid, the Division Bench ought to have been loath to allow the writ petition, and that too in exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The judgment and order of the Single Judge was far from being wholly incorrect or perverse.
15.2 Further, it is a matter of record that cancellation of allotment of the plot in question was necessitated by the requirement of the land for setting up and future expansion of an institute like IIT, a circumstance which was neither contemplated nor known at the time of the original allotment. The decision of BIADA to cancel the allotment was taken bona fide and in furtherance of a larger public purpose. BIADA, to demonstrate its bona fide, also offered to M/s. Scope an alternate piece of land, which it declined. There is no material on record which suggests that BIADA’s action is infected by any malice in fact. We also note that M/s Scope, in its writ petition, sought compensation in the alternative, in the event the primary relief could not be granted. While balancing the equities in favour of the parties, this aspect assumes considerable importance.
15.3 Taking these factors cumulatively – namely, the absence of any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, the larger public interest involved owing to involvement of an educational institution, and the availability of an alternate prayer for compensation–interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the present case would hinder a project of undeniable national importance and, in our opinion, thwart public interest.
16. Beyond doubt, institutes such as the IITs not only cater to a large number of students but also play a critical role in the development of individuals, society, and the nation at large. Suffice it to observe, their importance cannot be measured merely in quantitative terms. For their effective functioning and sustained growth, the availability of adequate resources, including land, is indispensable.
17. It is not that we are unmindful of the rights of the individual allottee, i.e., M/s. Scope. While such rights merit due respect and consideration, it cannot be placed on a pedestal higher than the collective public interest. Where the two come into conflict, individual interest must necessarily yield to the larger public good."
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and the State of Bihar approached the Supreme Court in appeal, by special leave, challenging the 110-page long order dated October 21, 2014 of a Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices I. A. Ansari and Anjana Mishra in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2014 on an intra-court appeal presented by the first respondent. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s judgment and orderdated January 24, 2014 of dismissal of M/s. Scope’s writ petition and consequently, allowed the writ petition of M/s. Scope.
Pursuant to an advertisement dated June 6, 2007 issued by BIADA inviting offers for auction of plots, M/s. Scope applied for allotment of a plot. Upon its emergence as the highest bidder, M/s. Scope was allotted Plot No. C-347, Patna Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna, on June 9, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,32,20,000/- (subsequently for a sum of Rs. 3,38,98,000/- due to increase in area). M/s. Scope wanted to construct a multiplex cum shopping mall on the plot, possession whereof was delivered on October 9, 2007. In the meanwhile, a decision was taken to set up the Indian Institute of Technology at Patna. The campus of a Government Polytechnic was chosen to house the IIT until the IIT developed its own campus. The plot in question is adjacent to the campus of the polytechnic. Five months after delivery of possession of the plot in question in favour of M/s. Scope, BIADA, vide letter dated March 29, 2008 directed M/s. Scope to stop construction on the plot in question till further notice. The records show that the State decided to reserve the plot in question for future development of the IIT campus and, thus, had directed BIADA to initiate action for cancellation of allotment in favour of M/s. Scope.
Consequently, BIADA, on November 10, 2008, issued a show cause notice to M/s. Scope proposing cancellation of the allotment (with refund and interest) followed by a second notice on 4th March, 2009. Vide its response dated March 12, 2009, M/s. Scope pointed out that the notice did not cite any legal provision of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 or the Rules framed thereunder which allowed BIADA to cancel the allotment or to take back possession of the plot in question on the ground of public interest; therefore, the proposed cancellation was without any legal authority. M/s. Scope also gave an estimate of the expenses incurred by it in course of construction activity. BIADA cancelled the allotment vide cancellation order dated April 4, 2009 and refunded the “cost of land originally deposited by the Unit amounting to Rs.3,38,98,000/-” along with 5% interest which was equivalent to the “rate of interest charged upon dues of BIADA from the allottees”.
Aggrieved by it, M/s. Scope invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the cancellation order. The alternative prayer made by M/s. Scope in the writ petition, for award of “actual compensation and not fanciful compensation”.
Notably, during pendency of the writ petition, and almost two years after its institution, BIADA vide letter dated November 25, 2011 proposed allotment of alternate plots in a nearby area which M/s. Scope refused finding the same inappropriate. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 24, 2017.
The Single Judge took note of the sudden development for establishment of IIT Patna which “compelled the respondent State authorities to do some out of the hat thinking to provide immediate infrastructure by way of a temporary campus, before the main campus could be developed for which identification of land and acquisition was a cumbersome and time taking process.
In view of the above and after finding that the cancellation of allotment was not diseased by mala fide, the Single Judge found that there were convincing reasons arising out of larger public good to effect cancellation of the order of allotment and to take possession of the land as a natural corollary thereof. It was further noted that fact of an IIT being set up, was not “even in the horizon when the decision to auction the land with the petitioner was taken”. The Single Judge held that cancellation was permissible and well within the ambit of Section 9(3) of the BIADA Act, which provides for the power of the State Government to seek, at any time, the restoration of land which is placed at the disposal of the Authority.
M/s. Scope contested the order of dismissal of its writ petition in an intra-court appeal where it succeeded. Its appeal was allowed vide the impugned order.
Justice Datta recollected Supreme Court's judgement in State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481. A 3-Judge Bench had held that the High Court should refuse to interfere in its equity jurisdiction when the same would be detrimental to public interest.
Justice Tripathi did not get the satisfaction of witnessing the endorsement of his order by the Supreme Court. He died on May 2, 2020, from a cardiac arrest at the AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi during pandemic. He was placed on a ventilator in critical condition in April 2020. He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Patna High Court on October 9, 2006 and was made a permanent judge of that High Court on 21 November 2007. Justice Tripathi was appointed as the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court from July 7, 2018. On March 23, 2019, Justice Tripathi resigned as Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court after being appointed as Judicial Member in the anti-corruption ombudsman, Lokpal of India.On March 27, 2019, he took oath as a Judicial Member of the Lokpal of India. He had served as the President of Patna Golf Club.
No comments:
Post a Comment