IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1407 of 2010 1. M/S BIHAR CONSTRUCTION & BORING COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PARTNER SRI SHYAM SUNDAR CHITLANGIA PATALBABU ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF BHAGALPUR. 2. SHYAM SUNDAR CHITLANGIA S/O LATE DILSUKHRAI CHITLANGIA R/O PATALBABU ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTT. OF BHAGALPUR AND PARTNER OF 'M/S BIHAR CONSTRUCTION AND BORING COMPANY', PATALBABU ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF BHAGALPUR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AT PATNA 2. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHART AT PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AT PATNA 4. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (B.I.A.D.A.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR FIRST FLOOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (B.I.A.D.A.), FIRST FLOOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, BARARI AT BHAGALPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya. For the State : Mr. J.P. Karn, AAG-IX. Mr. A.K. Dubey, A.C. to AAG-IX. For the BIADA : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Piyush Lall. ------------- 02 22.03.2010 The petitioners had been allotted substantial land at the Barari Industrial Area, Bhagalpur. The allotment was made over two decades back for establishment of a hume pipe manufacturing unit. In the past 20 years, apart from some building structural construction nothing has been progressed. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that the said industry has become non-profitable and non-viable. He submits that they are trying to explore other industrial activity but in the - 2 - meantime the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) has taken steps to cancel the land and resume possession. Petitioners have invested substantial amounts. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BIADA submits that industrial places are made available to the entrepreneurs for establishment of industry. Here, as per counter affidavit, it is evident that no industrial activity is at all being carried there. The structures which were being built over a decade and half back were there. In the substantial vacant place, apart from agricultural activity, nothing is being done. It is stated and photographs have been appended here to show that petitioners have put a notice on the main gate for sale of the land. Petitioners deny to sell because they know that they are mere a lessee. Be that as it may, on behalf of petitioner, it is vehemently argued that they are in position to submit concrete proposal for setting up of industry there under the changed environment in the State. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I set aside the order by which the allotment of the lease in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. I direct that the petitioners within a period of three months from today would submit concrete viable proposals to the competent authority of the BIADA for sanction. The authority would consider the same and sanction the proposal. The authority would sanction the proposal if it is in contravention to the user permissible in that area. Petitioners would be required to submit - 3 - monthly progress report thereafter to the BIADA, who would monitor the progress of establishment of the unit till its commissioning. In case, they find that petitioners are not taking effective steps in establishing the unit, BIADA would be within its power to issue notice to the petitioners and take action appropriate to the facts. I may add a word of caution that the action of the BIADA would be taken in furtherance of industrialization and not as a punitive measure. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)