IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3196 of 2010 1. M/S NAVIN DAIRY PRIVATE LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING IT'S REGISTERED OFFICE AT HILLMAN HOUSE, VIDYASAGAR ROAD, KHALPARA, SILIGURI AND FACTORY SITE AT A/7 DEONA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BEGUSARAI THROUGH IT'S AUTHORIZED MANAGER SHRI BIJIT GHOSH, S/O LATE BIMAL GHOSH R/O FULESWARI MORE, P.S. BHAKTINAGAR, DISTT.- SILIGURI Versus 1. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UDYOG BHAWAN, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THROUGH IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DARBHANGA ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Gautam Kejriwal and Aklash Chaturvedi. For BIADA : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr.Adv. 5 6.5.2010 Petitioner has been allotted a plot of land at Barauni Industrial Estate for establishing a Milk processing chilling – cum- process plant. Petitioner on receiving delivery of the plot established his processing unit and milk chilling unit. The unit having established for almost two years, now he is being told by the BIADA, who had allotted the plot that the petitioner has encroached upon what was supposed to be the road of the BIADA and must move his unit from encroached area. It is stated that part of the encroachment is also in the National High Way but in respect of that the industrial area authority should not be concerned. This Court by order dated 23.2.2010 directed the authority first to conduct enquiry as to who permitted this encroachment because this is virtually the first unit as one entered the industrial area and if this was being granted by 2 encroaching upon the road why was the unit not stopped on day one , why almost more than two years later the unit is being asked to dismantle part of its establishment and move the unit. The unit is on road is not disputed but the predicament that has arisen from the unit is that they got possession pursuant to which they bunilt, no objection was taken. They were given to understand that it was on the plot and within the plot assigned to them , which now appears to be wrong. They were occupying a part of road/plan. The predicament of the petitioner is that he is to dismantle and shift the plant ,which is there, that is, virtually death blow to it. It cannot re-establish in the remaining part of the land. Petitioner has pointed out that it had earlier asked for being allotted the adjacent plot but that was rejected. The result is that the land available is insufficient and industry is now to die in the industrial area. Only because at the appropriate time, no one checked or stopped. Thus, no relief can be granted on these admitted facts of encroachment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the Managing Director, BIADA , who has the necessary power to condone such encroachment and if he likes may find a way out so that the industry may survive and function. In my view, if the Managing Director has such jurisdiction and discretion, he would surely exercise it appropriate to the facts. 3 Let petitioner file a representation in this regard , which would be considered accordingly by the Managing Director at the earliest but not later than one month. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)