IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3972 of 2011 M/S SHYAM CARD BOARD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAIN ROAD, BEGUSARAI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD SON OF LATE DWARIKA PRASAD AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD, BEGUSARAI, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ….. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOGH BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOGH BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELA, DARBHANGA. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BARAUNI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BARAUNI, BEGUSARAI. ……. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.20 For BIADA : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior advocate with Piyush Lall, Advocate. 05/ 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 08.08.2007 (Annexure-4) by which the Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Darbhanga communicated the order of cancellation of lease of the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Managing Director of the Authority and for other ancillary - 2 - reliefs claiming that besides being ex parte, the said order is illegal and without jurisdiction in terms of Section 6(2-a) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the pleadings in the writ petition are contrary to subsequent developments which were not brought to the notice of learned counsel for the petitioner due to which proper pleadings could not be made in the writ petition which requires different grounds for challenging the same. 4. In the said circumstances, he seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file another writ petition giving full and proper facts and grounds. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that wrong statements have been made by the petitioner on oath and hence he should not be given any opportunity to file another writ petition and the instant writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as well as contradictory stand taken by the petitioner in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition which was just opposite to the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of I.A.No.3328 of 2011, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)