![Writ Relief May Be Refused in Public Interest, Appellate Bench Cannot Upset Plausible View; Plot for IIT Patna: Supreme Court in BIADA v. Scope Sales [2026 INSC 89]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Writ relief is discretionary and may be refused even on a strong legal case where granting it would harm the larger public interest, and an intra-court appellate Bench should not upset a Single Judge’s plausible view. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a writ petition against BIADA’s cancellation of an industrial plot allotment in Patna needed for IIT Patna, ordered refund with 7% interest, and directed that the plot be used only for educational purposes.
In Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2026 INSC 89), the Supreme Court held that the Patna High Court’s Division Bench ought not to have interfered in an intra-court appeal with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the allottee’s writ petition, since that view was plausible, not perverse, and rested on overarching public interest (paras 13, 15–15.3). The Court did not decide whether BIADA had statutory power to cancel the allotment, describing the Division Bench’s view on that point as “debatable” (paras 9, 15). A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the appeals (para 18).
Status: Division Bench judgment dated 21st October 2014 in LPA No. 335 of 2014 set aside; Single Judge’s dismissal of CWJC No. 4532 of 2009 restored; refund of Rs. 3,38,98,000 with interest at 7% per annum; plot to be used exclusively for educational purposes; appeals allowed (paras 18–20).
Headnote: Public Interest and Discretionary Writ Relief
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction – Relief may be refused in public interest – Intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal – Interference only if Single Judge’s view is perverse or demonstrably erroneous – Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 – Sections 6 and 9(3) – Cancellation of plot allotment for IIT Patna – Refund with interest – Use restricted to educational purposes.
Held: (i) The writ remedy is discretionary; relief may be denied despite a strong legal case if granting it would not serve public interest or would cause more harm to society (para 11).
(ii) Following State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, Ramniklal N. Bhutta, Master Marine Services and Ritesh Tewari, courts must weigh public interest against private interest while exercising discretion under Article 226 (paras 12–12.4).
(iii) In an intra-court appeal, both Benches exercise the same Article 226 jurisdiction; the appellate Bench should interfere only where the Single Judge’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or perverse, not merely because another view is possible (paras 13–14.4).
(iv) Dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for the Single Judge given the larger public interest in reserving the land for an educational institution; the Division Bench’s view that BIADA lacked power to cancel, though prima facie appealing, is debatable (para 15).
(v) The cancellation was bona fide, for a larger public purpose not foreseen at the time of allotment; an alternate plot was offered and refused, there was no malice in fact, and the allottee had itself sought compensation in the alternative (para 15.2).
(vi) Individual rights must yield to the larger public good where the two conflict (paras 15.3–17).
(paras 11–20)
Case Details: BIADA v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 89)
Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition restored; refund with 7% interest; plot to be used only for educational purposes.
Case: Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., with State of Bihar v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 89
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No. 930 of 2020
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta (author) and Justice Augustine George Masih
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 300A; Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 – Sections 6(2), 6(2-a), 6(2-b) and 9(3)
Impugned Order: Judgment dated 21st October 2014 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2014, reversing the Single Judge’s judgment dated 24th January 2014 dismissing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4532 of 2009 (para 1)
Counsel: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate, for BIADA; Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah for the State of Bihar; Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior Advocate, for M/s Scope (paras 3–5)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Writ courts may decline relief, even on a strong legal case, where interference would harm public interest (paras 11–12.4).
- An intra-court appellate Bench should not substitute its view for a plausible view of the Single Judge; interference is warranted only for perversity or demonstrable error (paras 13–14.4, 15.1).
- The Division Bench erred in allowing the writ petition, as the Single Judge’s refusal to exercise discretion was on a valid ground (para 15.1).
- BIADA’s cancellation for the needs of IIT Patna was bona fide, without malice in fact, and in furtherance of a larger public purpose (para 15.2).
- The question of BIADA’s statutory power to cancel was left open as “debatable” (paras 9, 15).
Brief Facts of the Case
Following an auction advertisement dated 6th June 2007, M/s Scope emerged as the highest bidder and was allotted Plot No. C-347, Patna Industrial Area, Patliputra on 9th June 2007, for Rs. 2,32,20,000 (later Rs. 3,38,98,000 due to increase in area), to build a multiplex cum shopping mall. Possession was delivered on 9th October 2007 (para 2(a)).
IIT Patna was meanwhile housed in the adjacent Government Polytechnic campus. On 29th March 2008 BIADA directed M/s Scope to stop construction; the State decided to reserve the plot for the IIT and directed cancellation. Show cause notices dated 10th November 2008 and 4th March 2009 followed. M/s Scope replied on 12th March 2009 that no provision of the BIADA Act permitted cancellation on public interest, and claimed expenses totalling Rs. 4,91,44,640 (paras 2(b)–(f)).
BIADA cancelled the allotment on 4th April 2009, refunding Rs. 3,38,98,000 with 5% interest. M/s Scope filed a writ petition seeking quashing, or alternatively actual compensation. During its pendency BIADA offered alternate plots on 25th November 2011, which M/s Scope refused. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, finding no mala fides and the cancellation within Section 9(3). The Division Bench reversed, holding that Section 9(3) did not apply once third-party rights arose, that cancellation under Section 6 was limited to defaults under Sections 6(2-a) and 6(2-b), and that the allotment was property under Article 300A (paras 2(g)–(l)).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Division Bench was right in interfering with the Single Judge’s dismissal of M/s Scope’s writ petition (para 6).
- As a preliminary question, whether the Division Bench ought to have interfered, having regard to the overarching public interest involved (paras 9–10).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Preliminary question first (paras 8–10): The Court said it would construe the BIADA Act only if the preliminary question of public interest was answered in favour of M/s Scope.
Discretionary writ relief (paras 11–12.4): The High Courts, as custodians of the Constitution, must maintain social balance, interfering when justice so demands and refusing when interference would affect public interest. Prabhu, Ramniklal N. Bhutta, Master Marine Services and Ritesh Tewari were relied on.
Limits of intra-court appeal (paras 13–14.4): Both Benches exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226. Relying on Baddula Lakshmaiah, Narendra & Co., Roma Sonkar and AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, the Court held that the appellate Bench should stay its hand where the Single Judge’s view is plausible.
Application to the case (paras 15–15.3): Dismissal of the writ petition was an available option. Judicial discipline demanded deference to the Single Judge’s discretion, which was exercised on relevant considerations. The cancellation was bona fide, an alternate plot was offered, and M/s Scope had itself sought compensation in the alternative. Interference would hinder a project of national importance.
Public interest over private interest (paras 16–17): Institutions like IITs need adequate resources, including land. The allottee’s rights merit respect but cannot be placed above the collective public interest.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Impugned Division Bench judgment set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment restored; appeals succeed (para 18).
- Rs. 3,38,98,000 paid by M/s Scope to be refunded with interest at 7% per annum; if the principal has already been returned, the balance interest to be paid within three months (para 19).
- Plot not to be put to any commercial use by any of the appellants and to be utilised exclusively for educational purposes and incidental activities (para 20).
- Pending applications disposed of (para 21).
Legal Principle Laid Down
The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and relief may be refused where granting it would harm the larger public interest, even if a legal point is made out. In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench exercises the same jurisdiction as the Single Judge and should interfere only where the Single Judge’s decision is perverse or demonstrably erroneous, not merely because another view is possible (paras 11, 13, 15.1).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 – Relied upon – refusal to interfere in equity jurisdiction against public interest. Discussed at para 12.1.
- Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 – Relied upon – weighing public interest under Article 226. Discussed at para 12.2.
- Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 – Relied upon – interference only where overwhelming public interest requires. Discussed at para 12.3.
- Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 677 – Relied upon – writ is discretionary; balancing competing interests. Discussed at para 12.4.
- Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, (1996) 3 SCC 52; Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, (2016) 3 SCC 340; Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service Commission, (2018) 17 SCC 106 – Relied upon – nature and limits of intra-court appeals. Discussed at paras 14.1–14.3.
- AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 111 – Relied upon – interference only for perversity or error apparent in law. Discussed at para 14.4.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 11: "If interfering with an impugned order/decision etc. would result in more harm to society, the writ courts may decline to exercise its jurisdiction."
Para 13: "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."
Para 15: "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."
Para 15.2: "The decision of BIADA to cancel the allotment was taken bona fide and in furtherance of a larger public purpose."
Para 17: "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."
Para 20: "It is also directed that the plot in question shall not be put to any commercial use whatsoever by any of the appellants and shall be utilised strictly and exclusively for educational purposes and activities incidental thereto."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For allottees of public authorities: Even a strong legal challenge to cancellation may fail if the land is needed for a significant public purpose; pleading alternative compensation can weigh in the balance (paras 11, 15.2).
- For Division Benches in writ appeals: A plausible view of the Single Judge should not be disturbed merely because a better view is possible (paras 13, 15.1).
- For development authorities: Bona fides, absence of malice and the offer of an alternate plot support cancellation for public purposes; land so taken may be tied to its stated purpose (paras 15.2, 20).
- Open question: The scope of BIADA’s power to cancel allotments under Sections 6 and 9(3) of the BIADA Act was not decided (paras 9, 15).
FAQs on Public Interest and Writ Relief
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in BIADA v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd.?
It set aside the Patna High Court Division Bench’s judgment, restored the dismissal of the allottee’s writ petition, and ordered refund with 7% interest (paras 18–19).
2. Can a High Court refuse writ relief even if the petitioner has a good legal case?
Yes. Writ relief is discretionary and may be refused where granting it would harm public interest (para 11).
3. When can a Division Bench interfere with a Single Judge in an intra-court appeal?
Only where the Single Judge’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or perverse, not merely because another view is possible (para 13).
4. Did the Court decide whether BIADA had power to cancel the allotment?
No. It decided the case on the preliminary question of public interest and called the Division Bench’s view on power “debatable” (paras 9, 15).
5. What restriction was placed on the plot?
It cannot be put to any commercial use and must be used exclusively for educational purposes and incidental activities (para 20).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 89, BIADA v. Scope Sales, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, cancellation of allotment, IIT Patna, public interest, discretionary writ jurisdiction, Article 226, intra-court appeal, Letters Patent Appeal, plausible view, refund with interest, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – BIADA v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).