Order This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondents 2 & 3, to adhere to their own procedure for setting up an industrial unit in Adityapur Industrial Area and for issuance of allotment letter in respect of Plot no. M-10(P), phase IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, having an area of 3.48 acres in terms of the promises and assurances made for which the petitioner has already deposited the required amount towards cost of the land and made further investment acting on the basis of instructions of respondents 2 and 3. 2. I.A. No. 8470 of 2013 has been filed through one of their Directors Dharamveer Singh for impleading M/s Hard Rock Fabrication (P) Ltd, Hard Rock Steel (P) Ltd and Hard Rock Auto(P) Ltd in this writ petition as respondents in view of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the apex Court in connection with SLP (Civil) No. 29324/2012. 3. It is submitted that the land under Plot no. M.10(P), phase IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, having an area of 3.48 acres was allotted to M/s Jamshedpur Steel (P) Ltd, but for some reason or the other, or due to financial crisis, M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd could not be able to run the industry and filed deed of surrender making prayer therein that the land may be allotted in favour of the petitioner in I. A. No. 8470 of 2013 4. On the other hand, said allottee M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd again executed a deed of surrender in favour of respondents 2 and 3 praying therein for allotment of the said land to the petitioner in this writ petition. Since M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd had executed two deeds of surrenders in favour of two entrepreneurs (i.e. petitioner in the writ petition and petitioners in IA No. 8470 of 2013) the matter of re-allotment had fallen in dispute and therefore the respondents 2 and 3 has taken a third view and cancelled the lease deed in respect of the land allotted in favour of Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd. (respondent no. 4). It goes without saying that the cancellation of the lease by which the land was given to M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd remained unchallenged by the original lessee. 5. 4). It goes without saying that the cancellation of the lease by which the land was given to M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd remained unchallenged by the original lessee. 5. The petitioner in IA No. 8470 of 2013 filed writ application before this Hon'be Court vide WP (C) No. 1213 of 2010 claiming allotment of the said land in their favour. But in course of hearing, they had agreed that let the plot in question be kept open for auction and any party can approach the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority through process of auction to get the said land. It is necessary to mention here that petitioners of the present writ petition were also parties and they had contested the same by filing their respective counter affidavits. 6. Thereafter, petitioner filed LPA No. 204 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this Court and the said LPA stood disposed of with the modification and directions as contained in the order passed on 25.4.2012. The findings of the learned Single passed in the W.P. (C) No. 1213 of 2010 stood upheld vide para 39 which reads as follows : “39. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that at present there is no better way than to direct the AIADA to auction the plot in dispute not between these two entrepreneurs but it may be a public auction, in which the writ petitioners and non petitioner appellant will be given opportunity to take part, after duly notifying it and after notifying the reserved price for the unit and that process may be completed expeditiously by the AIADA.” Thereafter, the petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. 29324 of 2012 before the Supreme Court. By order dated 30.10.2013 the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has been directed to maintain status quo, whereas the High Court has been requested to dispose of the present writ petition as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court in WP(C ) No. 1213 of 2010 as well as LPA No. 204 of 2011. 7. The entrepreneurs in IA No. 8470 of 2013 were permitted to make appropriate application within four weeks from the date of said order for impleading them in the present writ petition and therefore IA No. 8470 of 2013 has been filed. 8. 7. The entrepreneurs in IA No. 8470 of 2013 were permitted to make appropriate application within four weeks from the date of said order for impleading them in the present writ petition and therefore IA No. 8470 of 2013 has been filed. 8. The petitioners have filed counter affidavit to said IA No. 8470 of 2013 and submitted that there is no merit in this application and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner in IA No. 8470 of 2013 are not having further interest in allotment of said plot, because the investment which they had made, has been en-cashed by them from the original lessee which is apparent from the compromise arrived at between them in connection with C.P. case no. 979 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. On the other hand, petitioner(s) have paid a sum of Rs. 18,87,320/- to Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority against cost of the said land and, therefore, they have every right to get the land allotted and leased out in their favour and objection raised by any one against said plot can not be entertained. 9. I have gone through the IA No. 8470 of 2013 and the relevant annexures which include the order dated 10.5.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1213 of 2010 and the order dated 25.4.2012 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 204 of 2011. Till date, the fact remains that the lease executed by respondents no. 2 and 3 against Plot No. M. 10(P) phase IV, Adityapur Industrial Area in favour of M/s Jamshedpur Steel Pvt Ltd has been cancelled and the land under lease has now again devolved upon with the original lessors (respondents 2 and 3). 10. Contention made in the IA as well as the counter affidavit clearly indicates that the petitioner in this writ petition as well as petitioners (intervenors) in IA No. 8470 of 2013 are very much interested in getting the said land allotted in their favour and for that they have been fighting since very beginning. In the litigation which went up to Supreme Court with regard to allotment of said land, both the parties had appeared and contested the matter in respect of their claims which indicates how highly interested they are, in getting the land allotted in their favour. In the litigation which went up to Supreme Court with regard to allotment of said land, both the parties had appeared and contested the matter in respect of their claims which indicates how highly interested they are, in getting the land allotted in their favour. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this IA, so that no party interested in the said plot is debarred from raising its claim. 11. Accordingly, IA No 8470 of 2013 is allowed; the petitioners in the said IA are impleaded as respondents 5, 6 and 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is directed to serve copy of the writ petition to the newly impleaded respondents. IA Nos. 1151 of 2013 and 8346 of 2013 have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondents submits that he will have to file rejoinder to aforesaid IA Nos. 1151 of 2013 and 8346 of 2013 and therefore petitioner is directed to serve copies of the IAs to enable him file rejoinder, if any. Put up this case on 25.2.2014, as prayed for. Ordered accordingly.