IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7224 of 2008 M/S S.S. INDUSTRIES, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, DONAR, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SURENDRA SINGH, S/O LATE SUKHDEV SINGH, RESIDENT OF BABU SAHAB COLONY, KABILPUR, P.O. LAHERIASARAI, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UDYOG BHAVAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE MANAGNG DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAVAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE AT BELA, DARBHANGA. 5. M/S DURGA INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DONAR, DARBHANGA, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE KUMAR SHAH, RESIDENT OF DARBHANGA. ----------- 06 03.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as the BIADA), who is praying for time, but such prayer is being refused in the light of the orders of this Court dated 4.11.2010, whereunder last chance was granted to the counsel for the BIADA to seek further instruction in the matter. 2. Petitioner is allottee of a plot of land for raising industrial shed and is registered for steel fabrication and manufacture of steel bars/grill, as has been stated in paragraphs-3, 4 of the writ petition. Aforesaid allotment was cancelled by the Managing Director, BIADA. Cancellation order is dated 14.2.1996 and is impugned in the writ petition as Annexure-1. In paragraphs-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit - 2 - filed on behalf of BIADA statement has been made that in the 26th meeting of the Board of Directors of BIADA decision has been taken to return the possession of the area allotted to the original allottee. Aforesaid decision of the Board of Directors has also been confirmed by the Board of Directors. In the light of the subsequent decision of BIADA the impugned cancellation order is quashed and authorities of BIADA are directed to restore possession of the area allotted to the original allottee, who should commence production for which the unit is registered within three months. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however states that notwithstanding the cancellation order petitioner has remained in possession of the land allotted and continued with his business/fabrication activity. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to observe that the authorities of BIADA are at liberty to inspect the business premises of the petitioner three months after receipt of this order and if the business activity is not continued in the area allotted to the petitioner, the competent authority of BIADA is at liberty to cancel the allotment in accordance with law. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)