JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manik Vedsen, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yashraj Bardhan for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director and Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad for the Bihar State Finance Corporation. The State is represented by Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned AC to SC-05.

2. The appellant had preferred a writ petition seeking quashing of the demand of the respondent BIADA of the transfer fee of Rs. 1,71,329/-from the appellant/writ petitioner for transferring the concerned plot to him which he had purchased in the auction sale of the plot by the mortgagee/Bihar State Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “BSFC”) but the question in the present appeal is limited to whether the BIADA is justified in charging the transfer fee and if so, what should be the quantum of the same.

3. Be it noted that the demand of the BIADA of the transfer fee of Rs. 1,71,329/-has already been paid by the appellant along with the dues of the erstwhile allottee but without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

4. The plot in question was allotted to one M/s Bhojpur Bucket Industry on 16.06.1977 for setting up a unit for manufacturing buckets. The aforesaid allottee had obtained loan on the said plot on mortgaging it to Bihar State Finance Corporation. Because of the default in repayment of loan, the plot along with the lease hold land and the machinery was put to auction sale by the BSFC and the appellant had purchased the same on a consideration amount of Rs. 4,10,000/-with further stipulation that the dues payable to BIADA by the original lessee/allottee would also be restituted by the appellant.

5. When the appellant applied before the respondent/BIADA for change in the name of the proprietor and the project along with the prescribed fee of Rs.1,000/-, the same was refused on the ground that the lease in favour of original allottee had been cancelled before the lease hold land was auction sold to the appellant.

6. It further appears that the appellant approached the High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 15639/2009 when a Bench of this court referred the dispute to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, who was holding the post of Chairman of BIADA as also the Chairman of BSFC. He, on enquiry and on hearing the parties, validated the sale of lease-hold land but held that the appellant would be required to pay the transfer fee before the plot could be transferred in his name for a different project.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision by the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, the appellant was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 2,53,819/-towards the dues incurred by the erstwhile allottee along with a transfer fee of Rs. 1,71,329/-as well as the general charges of Rs. 4,532/-.

8. The transfer fee appears to have been calculated at the rate of 15% of the value of land evaluated at Rs. 271.95/-per sq. ft.

9. This was questioned by the appellant vide C.W.J.C. No. 13485 of 2013, which has been disposed off by judgment dated 18.05.2016 which has been impugned in the present appeal, holding that since the policy decision of the BIADA to charge transfer fee has not been challenged, such demand could not be asked to be quashed. However, the rate at which the quantum of transfer fee would be calculated was left open by the learned Single Judge as according to him, no document was placed by the parties for any deteriminative decision in that regard.

10. The reliance of the appellant on the judgment of this Court in M/s Vikramshila Transformers vs. State of Bihar 1994 (1) PLJR 604 was not accepted by the learned Single Judge as in the aforesaid case, a fresh price was demanded from the purchaser of the lease-hold land whereas in the present case, the appellant was only asked for the transfer fee as the primary ownership of the land always remained with BIADA.

11. Since the appellant had been suffering losses on account of non-transfer of the land in his nam