IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18644 of 2011 Satya Narain Prasad, S/O Late Akal Sah, R/O Village- Saidpur, P.O.- Dumri, Via- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna, Proprietor Shankar Metal Industry, Industrial Area, P.O. & P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through D.M., Patna 2. The Industrial Development Commissioner Cum Chairman/Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 6. The Asstt. Development Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Industrial Area, P.O. & P.S.- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna. 7. The Chief Accounts Officer, BIADA, Patna. 8. The District Magistrate, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Chandra Prasad, Advocate. For BIADA : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Yashwant Kumar Chaman, AC to SC 25. ---------------------------------- 2/ 18.11.2011 In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for directing the respondent authorities to give receipt of Rs.1,52,000/- and to provide No Dues Certificate under OTS Scheme (Annexure-4). In the year 1979, the petitioner was allotted a shed by the then Patna Industrial Development Authority, now Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BIADA’). It would appear from Memo no.4935 D, dated 08.09.2011 that allotment of the shed was cancelled in the year 1995 (Annexure-10). The BIADA vide its Memo dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-4) brought an OTS scheme for settlement of dues. The petitioner submits that in spite of several request and repeated letters, the BIADA did not communicate the amount due. The petitioner made his own calculations and deposited a sum 2 of Rs.1,52,000/- and odd on 30.08.2011 within the time prescribed. The petitioner, thus, submits that as the amount deposited by him has been accepted, the cancellation order lost its effects. Nonetheless the Executive Director vide his letter dated 06.07.2010 showed the dues as Rs.6,62,243/-. Mrs. Binita Singh, learned counsel for BIADA submits that the OTS scheme was general in nature and the petitioner deposited the amount as per his own calculation. The order cancelling the allotment was never withdrawn. She further submits that the petitioner ought to first challenge the cancellation of allotment. In my view, the petitioner should first move before the Industrial Development, Commissioner in this regard. It will be open for the petitioner to take all these points before the commissioner. In case, if any such application is filed, the same would be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with representation. It will be open for the petitioner to make prayer for interim stay before the appellate authority itself. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)