IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12220 of 1992 LALAN KUMAR & ORS . Versus AGRICULTURAL PRO.MARKET COMM. . ----------- 8/ 30/06/2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners is present. The earlier order dated 4.5.2010 was passed in presence of the counsel for the Administrator and Special Officer appointed under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act (Repeal) Act-23 of 2006(hereinafter called the Act). Notwithstanding the same neither has any counter affidavit been filed by the Administrator nor is it represented by any counsel. We had adequately observed that in view of the supersession of the erstwhile Marketing Board and the appointment of an Administrator the State needed to be added as a formal party when no fresh notices were required to be issued, as Mr. Chauhan appearing for the Administrator represented the Government itself. The controversy in the case has been adequately noticed in our order dated 27.8.2001 on the dispute with regard to the quantum of rent to be paid by the petitioners. This Court as an interim measure had directed the petitioners to pay Rs.1.50/ft” during the pendency of the writ application. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Y.V. Giri appearing for the petitioners submits that - 2 - the petitioners have been paying the same as otherwise the order itself provided consequences for eviction of the petitioners. It is his case that the petitioners are still in occupation of the premises duly paying the rent. During the pendency of the writ application, the erstwhile Marketing Board has been superseded by the aforesaid Act and now the premises are under the control of the State Government through the Administrator. There has thus been a factual change which may have necessitated fresh policy changes and for which reason we had thought it prudent to adjourn the matter on 4.5.2010 and again on 17.5.2010. If the State and its officials are not vigilant for the protection of the interest of the State, this Court refuses to carry the burden of the Administrator of deficiency. The disinterestedness of the State does not persuade us to allow the petitioners to have undue benefit of the same notwithstanding the passage of 9 long years. We therefore consider it proper to enhance the rent to Rs.3/ft” from the date of the present order liable to be paid by the petitioners with similar consequences of eviction in default as observed in the order dated 27.8.2001. Since the present order is ex parte in nature, - 3 - nothing in this order shall preclude the State authorities/Administrator from taking any fresh steps/action against the petitioners in view of the changed developments on facts. Nonetheless, any such fresh decision with regard to the petitioners shall have to be taken and implemented strictly, but in accordance with, inclusive of after due notice and consideration of any cause shown. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)