Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjiv Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (for short ‘BIADA’).

2. In the instant application, the petitioner a partnership firm, through one of its partner, namely, Deepak Kumar has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industries, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. 40 of 2019 by which he has dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner with an observation that he had no power to revise his earlier order as per the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Act 1974 (for short ‘the Act of 1974’). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 by which he has cancelled the allotment of the plot made in the year 1977. Another prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the appeal against the order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 had been rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that BIADA had allotted a plot admeasuring 10,080 square feet to the petitioner for a period of ninety years to carry on the manufacturing activities vide allotment letter dated 14.07.1977. In this regard, a registered lease deed was executed between the parties on 16.08.1978 laying down the terms and conditions of the lease. After establishing the manufacturing plant on the above said plot, the petitioner availed of a loan facility of Rs. 6,24,000/- from the Bihar State Financial Corporation. After establishing the plant on the said land, the petitioner firm got engaged in the manufacturing business, as it was granted registration number as a Small Scale Industrial Unit by the Assistant Development Officer, Patna, Industrial Area Development Authority. The further case of the petitioner is that due to paucity in the form of working capital for carrying out the manufacturing activities, the firm had to stop further production in the year 1990. Despite several efforts of the partners of the firm to arrange for funds from the Banks, they could not manage to get adequate co-operation from the Banks. Therefore, the petitioner was left with no option, but to stop the production activities. Thus, the factory had to be closed down. Under such circumstance, the respondent no. 4 vide impugned order dated 23.06.2007 cancelled the allotment of the plot. However, the petitioner had no knowledge of cancellation of allotment of plot made vide impugned order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the respondent no.

4. After the petitioner came to know about the cancellation order, an appeal under Section 6(2)(a) of the Act of 1974 vide Appeal No. 1 of 2011 was filed. The said appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2011, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 12550 of 2011 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the concerned respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before various authorities and, ultimately, filed another writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 4117 of 2019 wherein also a prayer was made for quashing the impugned order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 and the appellate order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3. 4. It would be evident from the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4117 of 2019 that having realised the difficulties in challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of plot dated 23.06.2007 and the appellate order dated 30.05.2011 because earlier challenge to those orders in C.W.J.C. No. 12550 of 2011 had been withdrawn, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with l