ORDER 1. It appears from the office report dated 23.8.2011 that notice upon respondent no.7 has not been served. 2. Learned counsel for the original writ petitioner submitted that L.P.A. can be decided without service upon respondent no.7 because of the reason that neither respondent no.7 nor present appellant has challenged the order of the cancellation of the lease of respondent no.7 passed by Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority(AIADA). 3. Since we have already taken note of the facts in the detailed order passed earlier, we are of the considered opinion that since the respondent no.7 was a party in the writ petition and the plots, which are alleged to be surrendered by the respondent no.7, are the subject matter in this writ petition and one plot of the respondent no.7 alleged to have been surrendered in favour of the appellant, it will be appropriate to serve the respondent no.7 also. 4. As per the office report dated 09.8.2011, the notice sent by registered post returned with a remark that “company is closed”. 5. In view of the above fact and in view of the reasons stated above, it will be appropriate that notice be served upon respondent no.7. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in that situation, Dasti notice may be given to the counsel for the appellant for service upon respondent no.7. 7. Requisites of Dasti notice be filed within a period of one week for service upon respondent no.7. 8. Rule is made returnable on 10.4.2012. 9. We perused the earlier order dated 13th July, 2011 and order dated 12th October, 2011 wherein we have observed that it is an admitted case that plots given after cancellation and surrender are not notified by AIADA nor applications are invited thereafter for allotment of the plots. The application can be submitted even prior to availability of the land and the project can be approved by the AIADA and direction can be issued to the said applicant to search out the appropriate plot for himself. Prima-facie, entire procedure appears to be quite strange for which a reasonable notice is required to be given to AIADA to explain how they are dealing with the property vesting with them, for which they have granted lease in favour of the industrialists and who have defaulted and for all these issues, AIADA was given opportunity. Prima-facie, entire procedure appears to be quite strange for which a reasonable notice is required to be given to AIADA to explain how they are dealing with the property vesting with them, for which they have granted lease in favour of the industrialists and who have defaulted and for all these issues, AIADA was given opportunity. On 12th October, 2011, this Court again observed that after going through the supplementary affidavit filed by the AIADA and after going through the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder i.e. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Rule, 1981, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie, it is a case where the Government land is allowed to be distributed without there being any transparency, fairness as well as, may be, at the loss of the State exchequer and the manner in which the industrial plots had been originally allotted and subsequently allotted after cancellation of the industrial plot of any other prior allottee, that can be given only by absolutely discreet method, as has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the AIADA after the order of this Court referred earlier. This Court further observed that whether AIADA has framed any Rules as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1974 with prior approval of the State Government by a Resolution published in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purpose of the Act of 1974. This Court already observed that if the procedure which has been indicated in the counter is the process, then we are giving Notice to AIADA to show-cause why their allotment of land may not be stayed till they frame a proper Rules or Regulations for allotment of land under the Act of 1974. 10. Now, AIADA has submitted its supplementary counter affidavit on 25.11.2011 annexing therewith a decision dated 30.09.2011 alleged to be taken to meet with the objections pointed by this Court and the State Government has submitted an affidavit on 28.11.2011 wherein in the last line of para-17 only it has been stated that “ in this view of the matter, the State Govt. agrees with the stand taken by Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority.” However, neither how and when such approval was granted by the State Government has been mentioned in the counter affidavit nor any document approved by the State Government has been placed on record. 11. Be that as it may, we have perused the decision dated 30.09.2011which is nothing but is a decision taken in the same line which allows allotment of totally arbitrary industrial plots by the AIADA and that too, to the blue eyed persons, obviously of the officers of the AIADA in totally discriminating manner and even in the matter where AIADA has power not only to cancel the leases but to take possession of the industrial plots and the Jharkhand Financial Corporation (is still running in the name even after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand), which also has powers under the State Financial Corporation Act to take possession of the properties of the defaulting units. Since we are of the above considered view, it is ordered that till the decision of this L.P.A., AIADA shall not proceed to finalize any proposal for any transfer of the industrial plots vesting in it or it may vest in it because of the cancellation of the lease made by the AIADA or surrender of the lease. 12. Put-up this matter on 10.4.2012.