Judgment B.P. Singh, J. The petitioner claims to be the Honorary Secretary of the Bara Gamhariya Fishermen's Cooperative Society. He has challenged the general notice for auction of three tanks situate in Bara Gamhariya issued on 17.8.87 by the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. According to the aforesaid notice, three tanks are to be settled for three years on the basis of the open auction to be held on 28.8.87. According to the petitioner, in the part the tanks were being settled with the Society of fishermen. The petitioner had also been assured that in future the settlement of the aforesaid tanks will be made with the petitioner-Co-operative Society on the basis of the Reserved Jama. According to the petitioner he personally visited the respondents who assured him that the settlement of the aforesaid tanks will be done with the Fishermen's Co-operative Society and in fact, he made several representations on behalf of the Society in this regard including those made on 17.5.1987, 20.7.1987 and 29.7.1987. In these representations he requested the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner Society for settlement of the aforesaid tanks with the Society. He, however, was surprised to find that the impugned general notice had been issued for auction of the aforesaid tanks on 28.8.1987. 2. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid notice for auction of the three tanks on two grounds. He has firstly submitted that the respondent, meaning thereby the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, has no jurisdiction to auction the said tanks in violation of the principles settled by the State of Bihar for the settlement of Sairats. During the course of the argument Mr. Khatri learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the challenge even broader and submitted that the respondents had no jurisdiction at all to auction the tanks, since only the State of Bihar had the authority to settle these tanks in accordance with the various notifications, circulars etc. issued from time to time. His grievance is that the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority is not settling the tanks in accordance with the directions and circulars issued by the State of Bihar from time to time in regard to settlement of sairats. issued from time to time. His grievance is that the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority is not settling the tanks in accordance with the directions and circulars issued by the State of Bihar from time to time in regard to settlement of sairats. The second submission of the petitioner is that in view of the assurance given to the petitioner-Society from time to time, the respondents cannot now hold an auction to settle the tanks with the highest bidders the tanks with the petitioner-Society on the basis of the Reserved Jama as assured. 3. The two submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are contradictory. The petitioner has stated that in the past the tanks used to be settled with the petitioner-Society by the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. If that is a fact then the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the authority to settle the tanks by the method of auction. Moreover, the petitioner claims that he was assured by the Authority that the tanks will be settled with the Society on the Reserved Jama. This also presupposes that the Authority had jurisdiction and authority to settle the tanks, and that on the basis of these facts it was claimed that the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority should be held bound by its promise. The principle of promissory estoppel was sought to be applied as against the Industrial Area Development Authority. The above submission, as observed earlier, presupposes the authority of the Industrial Area Development Authority to make the settlement in respect of the tanks in-question. The first submission therefore, that the Industrial Area Development Authority has no jurisdiction or authority to make the settlement is contradictory to the other submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. However I proceed to consider both the submissions on merit. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. It has been submitted that the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority was constituted by notification dated June 29, 1972 issued under the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Ordinance, 1972 (Bihar Ordinance no. 70 of 1972). The Industrial Area Development Authority was constituted for the purpose of development and promotion of the industries in the said area. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by an Act, of the year 1974. 70 of 1972). The Industrial Area Development Authority was constituted for the purpose of development and promotion of the industries in the said area. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by an Act, of the year 1974. According to the provisions of the Ordinance and the Act, the object of constituting such an Authority was to provide for planned development of industrial areas and promotion of industries and matters appurtenant there to. The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority is body corporate with powers to acquire, hold and dispose of properties both movable and immovable, and to contract, and is entitled in the said name to sue and be sued. The Act, provides that land may be transferred to the Authority by the State of Bihar Including developed and underdeveloped land for the purpose of development and or use in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Authority is responsible for planned development and maintenance of the industrial area. It has the power to make allotment of land, execution of lease, cancellation of such allotments or leases, realization of fees, rent, charges and matters concerned there to. 5. It has, therefore, been contended on behalf of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority that the lands which have been transferred to it have to be managed by it. The area is being developed in phases. The area where water accumulates such as the tanks in-question also form part of the area transferred to it by the State of Bihar. The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has, therefore, full powers to deal with such lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The law-lying areas where water accumulates are not Sairats, as understood under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. These areas have also to be developed but for the time being they have been left as they are since development work is going on in other areas. The development of the land where the tanks are situate will be taken up later since the process of filling up the tanks etc. will consume considerable time and money. It was, therefore explained that for the time being the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has been leasing out these tanks to earn revenue. It has been denied that in the past the tanks were being settled with the petitioner-Society on the basis of reserved Jama. will consume considerable time and money. It was, therefore explained that for the time being the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has been leasing out these tanks to earn revenue. It has been denied that in the past the tanks were being settled with the petitioner-Society on the basis of reserved Jama. It is asserted that in the previous years also the so-called three tanks were auctioned. Since the previous settlement was coming to an end on the 30th of July, 1987 it was decided to hold a fresh auction and to settle the tanks for a period of three years with the highest bidder. It is also explained that the notice was given wide publicity and a copy of it was also sent to the petitioner Society. This fact is admitted by the petitioner-Society as well. The auction was held on the 28th of August, 1987 and one Sri Beni Madhav Kaibarta was declared to be the highest bidder having offered a sum of Rs.33000/-. The petitioner did not participate in the auction. It is there after stated that no assurance whatsoever was given to the petitioner that the tanks will be settled with it on the basis of the Reserved Jama. 6. It is quite apparent from the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Ordinance, 1972 which was subsequently replaced by an Act, in the year 1974, that the lands transferred to the Industrial Area Development Authorities are to be managed by such Industrial Area Development Authorities In accordance with the provisions of the Act. The main purpose is to develop industrial areas and promote industries. The lands which stand transferred to the Development Authority necessarily have to be managed by the Development Authority. The lands thereafter belong to the Development Authority and not to the State of Bihar. There is, therefore, justification for the submission advanced on behalf of the Industrial Area Development Authority that the specific instruction circulars etc. of the State of Bihar relating to Sairats will not apply to the tanks in question. These tanks have to be dealt with by the Industrial Area Development Authority and not by the Government of Bihar Since the lands in question are law lands and water has accumulated over them and the tanks have become useful for the purpose of fishery, the Authority has decided to auction the same. These tanks have to be dealt with by the Industrial Area Development Authority and not by the Government of Bihar Since the lands in question are law lands and water has accumulated over them and the tanks have become useful for the purpose of fishery, the Authority has decided to auction the same. This is fully within the scope of its authority under the Act. The action of the Authority in settling the tanks by the method of auction cannot be said to be arbitrary. It has been explained that in future these lands my also be required for the purpose of development of the area, though for the time being they have been left as they are since the development activity is going on in other portion of the area transferred to the Industrial Area Development Authority. The petitioner had knowledge of the fact that an auction was being held and a copy of the notice was specifically served on him. Despite this, he did not take part in the auction. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the Industrial Area Development Authority if it proceeded with the auction. I, therefore, hold that the auction of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority in proceeding to settle the tanks in question by the method of open auction is fully authorised and justified. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority is competent to make such settlements in respect of the lands transferred to it by the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act, of 1974. The specific orders or circulars issued by the Government of Bihar from the time to time which cover the settlement of such rights in the sairats belonging to the State of Bihar, will not apply to the tanks in-question which fall within the area transferred by the State of Bihar in favour of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. 7. So far as the second submission is concerned, no material has been brought before me to establish that any assurance was given by the Industrial Area Development Authority to the petitioner that the tanks will be settled with the petitioner Society on the basis of the Reserved Jama. That apart, nothing has been stated in the writ petition to show as to how in view of the aforesaid assurance, the petitioner acted or did anything to his detriment. That apart, nothing has been stated in the writ petition to show as to how in view of the aforesaid assurance, the petitioner acted or did anything to his detriment. Obviously in such a case, the principle of estoppel or promissory estoppel will not apply. It may be observed that the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has specifically denied that any such assurance was ever given to the petitioner-Society. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.