IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3062 of 2008 M/S KANHAIYA CASTINGS PVT.LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli Mr. Vinay Mistry For the State : Mr. Naresh Dixit 6 19.09.2008 Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BIADA’) advertised various industrial plots, which were vacant or likely to be vacant consequent to cancellation of original allotment for fresh settlement. Petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement dated 5.6.2008 made an application. Petitioner was then called for bidding and he was the highest bidder. The Project Clearance Committee (PCC) of BIADA considered petitioner’s bid and approved it for settlement. This approval was , however, subject to the cancellation of original allotment. This would be found from the proceedings of the meeting of the Project Clearance Committee, dated 19.6.2007.The original allotment of one Pappu Industry was cancelled on 3.8.2007. He appealed against the decision to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Bihar. The appellate authority, as a matter of last indulgence, granted him 10 days time on 22.10.2007 but the said Pappu Industry could not do anything in the matter and as such the order of cancellation dated 3.8.2007 took effect and so did the allotment- recommendation attained finality as a consequence thereof. Petitioner, instead of being favoured with documentation of transfer and settlement, was served with a letter 2 dated 17.1.2008 whereby he was asked to appear before the Project Clearance Committee again for negotiation. He refused stating that his bid has already been accepted and at this stage no fresh offer from any one could be considered nor further negotiation be held. BIADA was obliged to show up with documentation as recommended earlier. It seems even though admittedly BIADA did not cancel the first advertisement nor recommend in favour of the petitioner .On some funny notion of law undisclosed, they had subsequently readvertised on the pretext that against the cancellation of allotment, the original allottee had gone to Industrial Development Commissioner, who had granted him some time but has failed to comply with the order and as such there was necessity to re-advertise. In my view, this is curious because in the very first meeting of the PCC it was noted that the selection of the petitioner was contingent upon cancellation of original allotment. It did not require re-advertisement. PCC appears to have negotiated with the respondent no.4 and purported to have a settlement with it instead of petitioner. This brought the petitioner to this Court challenging the action of BIADA through its Project Clearance Committee. Notices were issued by this Court to respondent no.4. Notices were validly served but instead of respondent no.4 appearing in this proceeding ,on record being a communication by it to this Court to the Registrar General that it is not interested in the settlement at all. Thus, very arbitrary power exercised by BIADA has thrown back to naught. Thus, leaving petitioner alone in whose favour 3 recommendations were already there and whose bid has already been accepted. In my view, in law, once the original allottee failed to get the order of cancellation of his allotment set aside, the selection of petitioner became final and only paper formalities were required to be done by BIADA in the matter. That being the position, BIADA cannot be permitted to back out from the deal and bound by the same. In my view, there was no necessity for the second advertisement at all. That advertisement itself was also without jurisdiction and uncalled for. However, as respondent no.4 has withdrawn, the formality with the petitioner should be finalized immediately. BIADA was constituted for the purposes of extending industrialization. This Court hope and wish that instead of waisting time and raising such issue in setting up of an industry,respondents should settle the matter expeditiously including finalization of all formalities with the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh , J.)