IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12079 of 2009 M/s. Ajanta Industry through its Proprietor Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Dukhi Singh, village Murgiachak, PS Bena, District Nalanda – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Industrial Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Managing Director cum Area Development Authority, Ydyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3) The Dev. Officer, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4) The Assistant Dev. Officer, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5) The Assistant Patna Industries Area Development, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 6) The Area Officer Industries Estate, Ramchandra Pur, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 7) The executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Dev. Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna – Respondents. 3 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the Bihar Industrial Area Development authority. The petitioner prays that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BIADA’) should be directed to execute a deed of lease for the lands allotted to him by the BIADA for starting the business of production of spare parts of tube well etc. The second prayer by the petitioner is against the rejection of his application by the BIADA on 22.5.2009 by which it has rejected the application of the petitioner to convert the business premises for the purpose of opening a hotel. The reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application is that a Hotel or Motel does not come under the Industrial Policy of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a resolution of the State government contained in Annexure 8A by which the definition of an industry under the 2006 Policy has been extended to include a hotel / motel. 2 Counsel for the BIADA submits that this amendment, dated 12.5.2010 was not in vogue when the petitioner’s application was rejected firstly in 2007 and later on 22.5.2009 vide Annexure 10. It has been further been stated by the counsel for the BIADA that it has not issued any lease in favour of the petitioner, for the reason that he is not in a position to invest 50% from the promoter’s contribution on the allotted land as required under the prevalent practice. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that because the lease of the land is not in the name of the industry in question, he is not able to raise funds to enlarge his activities by building his industry, with the modern requirements. This court in any event, grants leave to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Managing Director, BIADA for reconsideration of grant of permission to start motel on the allotted land and to consider as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for a fixed term lease on the land so allotted. If the petitioner files an application before the Managing Director, he will consider the entire facts along with the amendment in the definition of the industry under the 2006 Industrial Policy as well as the recent amendments of the Policy in 2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months on receipt of the application. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)