A. Abhishek Reddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):—

“(a) To set aside Letter No. 533/D dated 03.05.2024 [ Annexure P9] issued by the Respondent No. 7 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been directed to return the Plot Nos. C- 21 and 22 within the Hajipur Industrial Area to the Respondent Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) as the same was passed wholly without jurisdiction and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the satutory provisions.

(b) For a direction upon the Respondents to not to give effect to Letter No. 533/D dated 03.05.2024 [Annexure P9] issued by the Respondent No. 7 during the pendency of the instant writ application.

(c) For a direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to carry on its business/ manufacturing on the allotted plot Plot Nos. C-21 and 22 in the Hajipur Industrial Area during the pendency of the instant writ application.”

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok Choudhary assisted by Mr. Akshansh Ankit appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure P/9) is bad, illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:—

4. Learned counsel has stated that the order has been passed by the Deputy General Manager of BIADA who is not authorized under the Act. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of the BIADA Act, 1974 wherein, the authority constituted under the Act comprising of the Chairman, Managing Director and five other Directors are authorized to pass any order of cancellation; second, the explanation filed to the show cause notice by the petitioner has not been adhered to nor any reasons are given by the authority in support of the impugned order; thirdly that in the impugned order it is stated that the authorities have inspected the premises on 22.02.2024, the copy of the inspection report has not been served on the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of Deepak Paints (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 292.

4A. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the present writ petition and stated that the petitioner on an earlier occasion has given an undertaking before this Hon’ble Court. That on the basis of the said undertaking, the petitioner was obligated to start production within sixty/ ninety days and commercial production within 6/ 9 months but the petitioner has failed to do so. Further, it is stated that the Managing Director has been authorized by the authority to pass necessary orders and, therefore, the order impugned is valid. Further, learned counsel has stated that the copy of the inspection report could not be served on the petitioner as the unit was nonfunctional and closed, therefore, the same was pasted on the gate of the premises. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order has been passed by the Deputy General Manager who admittedly is not authorized by the authority nor any authorization letter has been filed by the respondent BIADA to show that the Deputy General Manager is an authorized person to pass the impugned orders. On this sole ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is to be allowed. That in so far as the other contentions raised by the petitioner are concerned, admitted the copy of the inspection report has not been served on the petitioner. Moreover, a reading of the impugned order reveals that absolutely no reasons are given in the impugned order or nor the explanation submitted to the show cause notice by the petitioner has been dealt with.

6. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases has time and again held