IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.852 of 2009 M/S Ganga Prakash Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., B/41-42(P), Industrial Area, Hajipur, District Vaishali, through its Director, Prakash Shekhar, son of Shri Chandeshwar Prasad, resident of Sumitra Devi Path, South Mandiri, P.O. & P.S. Buddha Colony, District-Patna. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Hajipur, District Vaishali. 4. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur. …… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Suraj Samdarshi & Rajan Prakash, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate with Smt. B.Singh, Advocate. --------- 06/ 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions from its client for several months and in the meantime some adjournments had been sought and finally on 30.06.2011 final adjournment was given to learned counsel for the petitioner as a last chance. However, inspite of best effort of learned counsel, the petitioner did not consult him. In the aforesaid circumstances, in view of earlier order this court permitted learned counsel for the petitioner to argue its case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents- authorities of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, - 2 - Patna to present the lease deeds dated 06.11.2008 and 06.06.2008 for registration to enable the petitioner to obtain financial assistance from Banks/ financial institutions and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one time settlement scheme has been floated and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to avail those facilities as he is unable to make the required payments due to serious difficulties detailed in the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since 1 ½ years, the unit is closed and there is dues to the tune of Rs.18 lacs and odd as against the instalments for land allotted by the respondents to the petitioner. He further submits that on 30.10.2004 the respondents allotted 35,000 square ft of land to the petitioner, whereafter first instalment was paid by the petitioner on 06.11.2004 on which date a lease deed was prepared and executed by both the parties. He further submits that subsequently on 29.11.2007 the respondents allotted 6251 sq. ft. of additional land to the petitioner for which lease deed dated 06.06.2008 was prepared and executed by the parties. He also stated that thereafter this writ petition has been filed on 16.01.2009 without making any payment to the respondents and hence there is no occasion for the respondents to get lease deeds registered. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the - 3 - case, it is quite apparent that since the terms and conditions with respect to running of unit and payment of instalments have been violated by the petitioner, the respondents cannot be legally forced to get the mentioned above deeds of lease registered. 7. So far the claim of one time settlement scheme is concerned, neither any statement of the said scheme has been mentioned in the writ petition nor any application has been produced by the petitioner to show that he had ever applied for the benefits of OTS scheme and hence in this matter also this court finds no occasion to pass any order with respect to the said claim. 8. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)