M/S Pipoplast Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9041 of 2016 ====================================================== M/s. Pipoplast Pvt. Ltd, B-10 & B-11, Bela, Industrial Estate, Muzaffarpur Bihar through its Proprietor Praveen Chandra Kishore @ Prabin Chandra Kishore S/o- Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, residing at- c/o Sri N.K.P Sinha, C.T Marg, Gannipur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Industry, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar

2. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) through its Secretary, Udhog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna

3. The Managing Director, BIADA, Udhog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna

4. The Executive Director, BIADA, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Development Officer, BIADA, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Area In Charge, Industrial Area, Muzaffarpur

7. The Bihar State Finance Corporation (B.S.F.C), through its Branch Manager, B.F.S.C, Sahay Compound, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Devashish, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, AC to S.C.26 For BIADA : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Prasad & Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocates For BSFC : Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the BIADA, BSFC and for the State. It is the stand of the petitioner in the writ application that the representation filed by the petitioner in the year 2011 against the order of BIADA passed in the year 2010 is still pending before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Industrial Development Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 that the petition filed by the petitioner on 5.1.2011 remained defective and never registered as an appeal against the order of BIADA but the appellate authority upon removing the defect can still hear the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9041 of 2016 (5) dt.23-08-2016 petition treating the same to be an appeal and delay condonation application if the petitioner deposits the appeal fee and get his petition registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the appeal fee and take appropriate steps in the matter.

In the above circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall deposit appeal fee for the representation filed by him earlier within six weeks from today and upon the same being done the respondent Industrial Development Commissioner shall ensure that the appeal is heard and disposed of within a further period of two months after the deposit of the appeal fee.

Until the disposal of the appeal, status quo as of today shall be maintained.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U