ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or orders in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 19.11.2022 as contained in memo no. 1501 dated 19.11.2022 issued under the signature of the Respondent Deputy General Manager Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder the allotment of plot/land measuring 78794 sq. ft. area as allotted to the petitioner by BIADA has been cancelled. Further, security deposit submitted by the petitioner has been seized.

ii) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from taking possession of the allotted plot/land measuring 78794 sq. ft. (allotted to the petitioner vide Memo No. 3118 dated 06.03.1974, 1.50 Acre, letter no. 1062 dated 27.05.1988, Area 0.25 Acre and vide Memo No.

1054 dated 08.08.1994 area 2564 Sq. ft.”

iii) To pass interim/ex-parte interim order staying the operation of letter no. 1501 dated 19.11.2022 issued under the signature of the Respondent Deputy General Manager Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur and/or preventing the Authority from dispossessing the petitioner from the allotted land in question And/or preventing the respondent Authorities from taking coercive action against the petitioner in relation to the impugned order dt. 19.11.2022.

iv) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

On 16.12.2022, we had passed the following order:-

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as on date possession of the unit/plot has not been taken over, which fact is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent BIADA. However, it is not in dispute that, as on date, no third party right stands created.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

As agreed, petitioner will file an undertaking before this Court to the effect that (a) within sixty/ninety days, petitioner will start commercial production with BIADA handing over possession of the premises to the petitioner/recall of the order of cancellation. With the petitioner failing to do, BIADA shall take over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises from the petitioner; (b) within six/nine months, petitioner shall make the Unit fully operational and functional at least to the capacity of 80% for the product sanctioned and allowed to be manufactured as per the original terms of allotment; (c) petitioner shall clear all uptodate dues payable to BIADA. This shall be done within four weeks from the date of handing over possession/recall of order of cancellation; (d) petitioner shall make itself compliant with all mandatory statutory requirements, including the ones protecting the interest of the employees; Petitioner shall clear all other statutory dues including G.S.T./electricity charges etc.; (e) in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the undertaking, BIADA shall take over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises from the petitioner with liberty for further allotment to 3rd party, with the petitioner losing all rights therein and (f) petitioner shall be liable for initiation of proceedings for contempt for having violated the undertaking furnished to the Court.

Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish such an undertaking within next seven working days, failing which the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for default.

Copy of the undertaking be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents.

However, BIADA has to recall the orders passed cancelling the allotment of the premises.

Let BIADA take a call on the offer made by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the BIADA states that, should the petitioner make an application for change of user, it would be considered in accordance with the industrial policy, provi