M/S Sarvshree North India Mechinical Engineering Works v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.243 of 2015 With I.A. No.244 of 2015 With I.A. No.325 of 2015 ====================================================== M/s Sarvshree North India Mechinical Engineering Works through its Proprietor, Shivnandan Mahto, son of Late Rajeshwar Mahto, resident of village- Phulwaria, P.O. - Barauni, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Bankipur, Patna through its Managing Director.

3. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Bankipur, Patna.

4. The Area Officer, Industrial Area, Barauni, P.O.- Tilrath, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-25 For the respondent-BIADA : Mr. Prashant Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 02-02-2015 Heard Mr. Suresh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned Standing Counsel No.25 for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter no.559 dated 30.6.2014 issued by the Area Officer, Industrial Area, Barauni whereby he has been asked to hand over the

Patna High Court CWJC No.243 of 2015 (2) dt.02-02-2015 physical possession of the Unit to the Authority. Perusal of the writ petition manifests that the lease of the petitioner with the Authority itself was cancelled and it is admitted by Mr. Mishra that the cancellation took place in 2007. It is also admitted that such cancellation was never questioned by the petitioner nor in my opinion, can be questioned after such delay and the order impugned in this writ petition is only a consequence thereof.

For the reasons aforementioned, this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence to the prayer made in the writ petition and as a consequence the writ petition is dismissed. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U