JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At long last this Court would be satisfied that the Government of Bihar and the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority have been able to save an up coming industry for which this writ application was filed at the behest of the petitioner on 18.10.2012. 3. The petitioner under the Industrial Policy of the year 2006 had decided to set up a Maize based Starch Liquid Glucose Plant of 300 Ton per day and 3 KW Captive Power Plant by undertaking to invest a sum of Rs.125 Crores approximately. The petitioner had approached BIADA for allotment of land in the industrial area premises at Forbesganj on 15.9.2009 and though it is requested for allotment of 40 Acres but BIADA by its allotment letter dated 7.11.2009 had allotted initially 30 acres of land and to that further allotment to the petitioner to the tune of 5.65 was made by the separate order of the BIADA dated 15.5.2010. These allotments were followed by execution and registration of lease deed in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years. 4. The petitioner upon allotment of 35.65 acres of land by the BIADA had started constructing boundary wall for its industrial area premises but its work of construction of boundary wall over a portion of the land was objected to by some of the local villagers on the ground that while the land was lying vacant they were using part of it by way of their way/ passage from their village to the main road. When such objection was raised by the villagers particularly of Bhajanpur Tola these residents were raising voice on account of their obstruction to the shortcut route through the land allotted to the petitioner. The authorities of the BIADA having sought assistance from the local authorities and having also got a Magistrate deputed had some of the construction of boundary wall completed on 1.6.2011 but while this construction of the remaining portion of the boundary wall on the eastern side was going on a mob of large number of anti-social elements attacked the BIADA premises as also the factory premises of the petitioner and after allegedly breaking upon the newly constructed wall they are also said to have caused huge destruction to the property of the petitioner. 5. 5. In the said incident the machinery of the police in order to maintain the law and order had to resort to even firing, as a result whereof death of four persons had taken place on the spot. The said incident was made subject matter of the two police case, one lodged by the Director of the petitioner and another lodged by the Duty Magistrate giving rise to Forbesganj P.S.Case No. 268/2011 dated 3.6.2011 and Forbesganj P.S.Case No. 269/2011 dated 3.6.2011. The State Government also took the matter seriously and had constituted a one Member Enquiry Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhvendra Sharan, a retired Judge of this Court by a notification dated 22.6.2011 with the terms of reference to enquire into the background and circumstances which led to the occurrence of the incident of the police firing as also fixing responsibility into the justification of firing by the police. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that its representative had kept on representing various authorities of the State Government and the BIADA and on 1.12.2011 a meeting was called by the Industrial Development Commissioner in which the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, Managing Director, BIADA as also local people representative including Ex- MLA and the present MLA of the area alongwith the representative of the petitioner were invited and in the said meeting it was decided to resolve the dispute relating to passage and it was unanimously resolved that keeping in mind the convenience of the villagers of Bhajanpur, the internal road of the BIADA adjoining the plot of Power Grid measuring 40 feet wide would be allowed to use as public road for all and the BIADA would widen the cemented road by soil filling on both the sides of the road with brick soiling and construction of drainage. It was further resolved that as per requirement the Culvert and Bridges will be constructed with arrangement of lighting of BIADA. 7. This decision taken in the meeting under the Chairmanship of the Industrial Development Commissioner was duly notified by the Executive Director, BIADA vide memo No. 7470 dated 30.12.2011 wherein it was mentioned that in view of the decision taken in the meeting on 1.12.2011 the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority was notifying the land of BIADA as public way, keeping in mind the convenience of the village of Bhajanpur. A short tender notice thereafter was published on 21.5.2012 for construction of PCC road, Culvert and Pucca Drainage at an estimated cost of Rs.103.78 lacs and in response to the tender notice after receipt of the quotations by the bidder a contractor was selected and the work order was issued, whereafter substantial work of construction of PCC road had also been completed resulting into passage/ road being used by the local villagers. 8. The grievance of the petitioner, however, was that the work of reconstruction of boundary wall was not undertaken by the BIADA and when the petitioner failed to get any relief either from the BIADA or even from one man Judicial Enquiry Commission it had filed this writ application on 18.10.2012 for the following relief: “(A) For a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to start its Trade and Commerce which has been prevented by the respondents in most arbitrary, indifferent and callous manner for no fault on the part of the petitioner. (B) For a direction to the respondents to immediately resume the work of completion of boundary wall of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority premises in the Industrial Area, BIADA at Forbesganj which has been suspended since last 3.6.2011 to the utter prejudice of the petitioner. (C) For a direction to the respondent to complete the boundary wall of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority premises adjoining toe the industrial plot of the petitioner without any further delay to enable the petitioner to resume its civil construction of its factory premises to commence production at the earliest which has remained suspended due to indifferent attitude of BIADA. (D) For a direction to the respondent to provide adequate security in the Industrial Area BIADA for safety of the life of the persons working in the Industrial Unit and to provide security to the property of the Industrial Unit to enable the petitioner to recommence its industrial activity.” 9. Thereafter this Court started closely monitoring the subject keeping in its view not only the cause and concern of the petitioner but that of the industrial backward State of Bihar while always being conscious of the cause and concern of the people in general with regard to their grievance of their easementary rights and access to the road. Thereafter this Court started closely monitoring the subject keeping in its view not only the cause and concern of the petitioner but that of the industrial backward State of Bihar while always being conscious of the cause and concern of the people in general with regard to their grievance of their easementary rights and access to the road. The order of this Court dated 4.3.2013 would only reflect the effort made by this Court in this regard which reads as follows: “ It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the disturbances in which the boundary wall over plot of BIADA adjacent to the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner, was damaged on 3.6.2011 there was a meeting between the local people and the administration in which the Managing Director of BIADA had also participated and BIADA had agreed to allow use of 40 feet road to members of the public. It is submitted that thereafter an office order was also issued by the Managing Director in that regard and in the month of May, 2012 a notice inviting tender for constructing the said road was also issued and, according to the petitioner, that road is complete. Still it is the stand of BIADA that boundary wall could not be constructed on account of the obstruction being put by the local people and in this regard reference is made to the letters of the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.1.2012. Let the Chief Secretary, Bihar file a counter affidavit in the matter as to what steps have been taken by the State to ensure that the law is not taken into his own hand by any person and the issues are resolved in accordance with law as a lot of time has passed since the disturbances had taken place even after the report of the District Magistrate considering that in the meantime BIADA had issued the tender and completed the alternative road which has been offered for use by the local villagers also.” 10. The matter thereafter was heard on several dates and the stand of the Government as also BIADA in respect of taking steps for construction of boundary wall was recorded in the order dated 5.4.2013 which reads as follows: “ Pursuant to the direction of this Court a counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar in which it is stated that a high-level meeting presided over by the Chief Secretary was held on the issue in which BIADA was directed to take steps for construction of boundary wall in consultation with the local authorities. Thereafter other steps were also taken including a meeting with the local people to sort out their grievances. Today a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority stating that steps have been taken to prepare an estimate for construction of the remaining portion of the boundary wall of the industrial area so that the construction work can be undertaken in consultation with the District Administration, Forbesganj after finalization of the tender work. It is also stated that on 3.4.2013 the Managing Director, BIADA has issued direction to the Consultant (Project Implementation) to complete the work of NIT within two days. Put up the matter among top 10 cases on 3rd May, 2013.” 11. Thereafter on 13.5.2013 when a plea was taken that the construction work of the boundary wall of the petitioner despite issuance of a short tender notice dated 4.4.2013/ 12.4.2013 had evoked almost no response the petitioner came out with an offer to get the work of construction of the boundary wall done but this Court in its order dated 13.5.2013 had desired the petitioner to wait for some more time as would be evident from the extract of the order dated 13.5.2013 which reads as follows: “ A second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of BIADA in which it is stated that the NIT was issued on 4.4.2013 and published in the newspaper on 12.4.2013 but only one tender was received which tenderer also did not participate in the tender process. Accordingly, a fresh tender was decided to be issued and was issued on 27.4.2013 for which the last date for sale of BOQ is 28.5.2013 and the offers received shall be opened on the same day thereafter. Accordingly, a fresh tender was decided to be issued and was issued on 27.4.2013 for which the last date for sale of BOQ is 28.5.2013 and the offers received shall be opened on the same day thereafter. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the respondents are unable to get the contractor to complete the work, then the petitioner is willing to get the work done as it is the petitioner which is suffering on account of delay in the construction of the boundary-wall. In my view that stage has not yet come. Since the fresh tender has been issued, it would be better to wait for the result of the said tender before any such proposal on behalf of the petitioner could be entertained by BIADA. Put up on 18th June, 2013 among top ten cases.” 12. The matter thereafter remained pending only in search of the contractor at the behest of BIADA as would be found of the order of this Court dated 24.6.2013 and 11.7.2013 which reads as follows:- “ 24.6.2013 Mr. Kezriwal for the petitioner and Mr. Lal for BIADA are present. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 which is taken on record. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the respondent -BIADA with reference to the statements made therein submits that the selection of the agency/contractor is at the final stage as negotiation are going on with the competing bidders. He submits that final decision is likely to be taken by the respondent -BIADA within two weeks. Mr. Kezriwal, learned counsel, in view of the aforesaid stand of respondent, does not object placement of the matter after two weeks. As prayed, post this matter under the heading “For Orders” after 15 (fifteen) days.” ************************** “11.7.2013 The respondent BIADA resolved to set up industrial area in the district of Araria. The same was set up after acquiring the lands. The petitioner, on application, was allotted a piece of land within the said premises for setting up a starch plant. In course of construction of boundary wall of the said industrial area, a dispute had arisen between the residents of the nearby villages and the respondent State as well as BIADA. It is the case of the petitioner that part of the boundary wall had been demolished. The petitioner, having invested substantial amount, is unable to start the production. In course of construction of boundary wall of the said industrial area, a dispute had arisen between the residents of the nearby villages and the respondent State as well as BIADA. It is the case of the petitioner that part of the boundary wall had been demolished. The petitioner, having invested substantial amount, is unable to start the production. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the BIADA has submitted that steps are being taken to finalize the bid for construction of those portions of the boundary wall. He states that the residents of the nearby/contiguous villagers have been provided alternative path/way. It has been submitted that steps have already been taken by BIADA for selection of agency. Two attempts made in this regard failed due to diverse reasons. The process of selection is again under way. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to construct the boundary wall as per specification and at the rate(s) quoted by the tenderer in the last bidding process. Mr. Kezriwal counsel for the petitioner states that the State respondents in case of grant of relief should provide adequate security to the petitioner in constructing those portions of the boundary wall. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Additional Advocate General appeared and stated that adequate security as and when needed shall be provided to the BIADA or the agency selected by the respondent BIADA for constructing the demolished/damaged portions of the boundary wall. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that the petitioner should first approach the Managing Director of BIADA with the said proposal whereafter the feasibility thereof shall be examined/ considered. Both parties however agree that any further delay in the matter shall not benefit either the BIADA or the petitioner. Let the petitioner approach the respondent Managing Director, BIADA within a week whereafter the said respondent shall consider the same. Parties shall bring on record the result of such consideration. Post this matter after three weeks in the same head.” 13. Let the petitioner approach the respondent Managing Director, BIADA within a week whereafter the said respondent shall consider the same. Parties shall bring on record the result of such consideration. Post this matter after three weeks in the same head.” 13. It also appears that when the authorities of BIADA could not find any contractor and the petitioner had filed his representation on 17.7.2013 the BIADA had accepted the offer of its Director, namely, Ashok Kumar Choudhary granting him permission to construct the broken portion of the boundary wall of the Industrial area, Forbesganj at the lowest rate as quoted in the last published NIT and accordingly, an order bearing No. 5482 dated 29.7.2013 had been issued by BIADA communicating its decision that the petitioner would be paid the above amount on completion of work. This Court, accordingly, having recorded the aforementioned development as also in view of the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that it was agreed to complete the work provided the District Administration would give adequate security/ protection in construction of boundary wall. 14. This Court, however, had kept the matter pending awaiting the Government’s commitment to provide adequate safety measure to the petitioner in the work of construction of boundary wall. Subsequently on 16.9.2013 finding that no headway was being still made and that in the affidavit personally sworn by the Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar some apprehension of deterioration of law and order condition in the area on account of construction of the boundary wall was expressed, it had passed a long order on 16.9.2013 which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow: “ Mr. Kejriwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore for the respondent -BIADA as well as the State respondents are present. The State Government promulgated Industrial Policy in the year 2006 providing various incentives for attracting investment in the State of Bihar with a view to ensure rapid industrialization of the State particularly the backward districts. The petitioner’s Company became an applicant for allotment of land by the respondent BIADA for setting up Maize based Starch Liquid Glucose Plant estimated cost whereof is about 125 crores. The petitioner’s Company became an applicant for allotment of land by the respondent BIADA for setting up Maize based Starch Liquid Glucose Plant estimated cost whereof is about 125 crores. According to the writ petition, Districts constituting North Bihar are Maize producing areas and the proposed food processing unit was going to enormously benefit the farmers of North Bihar besides providing the unit access to raw materials at lower cost. The respondent BIADA allotted 35.65 acres of land to the petitioner in the Industrial Area acquired by the respondent BIADA in the District of Araria. After registration of lease deed the petitioner marshaling its all resources started construction of the unit and invested a huge amount. The land provided by the BIADA in the said Industrial Area to the petitioner’s Company was not fenced. The BIADA was required to construct boundary wall. While the boundary wall was being constructed some villagers of the neighbouring village offered resistance. The part of the boundary wall, therefore, remained un-constructed. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents for immediate resumption of construction of boundary wall of the Industrial Area of BIADA at Forbesganj which remained suspended since June 2011. Diverse affidavit(s) have been filed. The petitioner having appreciated the difficulties faced by the BIADA in finalizing the tender for construction of unfinished portion of boundary wall of the Industrial Area offered to construct the remaining portion of the boundary wall at the rates fixed by the respondent BIADA. The offer made by the petitioner was directed to be considered by the Managing Director of the BIADA. An affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.4 has thereafter been filed stating as under:- “4. That pursuant to the order dated 11.7.2013 the petitioner filed its representation dated 17.7.2013 before to the Authority. The same was examined and in deference to the said order of the Hon’ble Court the request of the petitioner has been accepted and its Director, namely, Ashok Choudhary, has been granted permission to construct the boken portion of the boundary wall of I.A., Forbesganj at the lowest rate as quoted in the last published NIT of the Authority for the said purpose. Accordingly, order bearing memo No. 5482 dated 29.7.2013 has been issued by the Authority to the said affect containing its decision that the petitioner would be paid the above amount on completion of the work; the recently published NIT (i.e. on 22.07.2013) for the said work be cancelled, etc.” The petitioner thereafter filed an affidavit stating therein that earlier in course of construction of boundary wall of the Industrial Area resistance was offered by the local residents of the area particularly the residents of a neighbouring village which had resulted in police firing and as such this Court may direct the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Araria to provide adequate security to the petitioner and its labour, technicians to deal with the anticipated unruly action by the residents who were handful in number. In the light of the said affidavit this Court called upon the respondents to file their response. An affidavit by the Principal Secretary Home (Special), Government of Bihar has been filed. This Court would extract paragraph nos. 4 and 5 thereof which read thus:- “4.That it is stated that in order to create a congenial atmosphere and to provide necessary assistance for the construction/repair of part of the demolished boundary wall of BIADA, the district administration, Araria is making all efforts to amicably settle the issue through negotiation and persuasion with the affected villagers of Bhajanpur village. 5.That in order to take stock of prevailing situation personally and to sense the prevailing mood and to ease out any objection and resistance and also for reaching a consensus among the affected villagers of Bhajanpur, the respondent no.5 ( District Magistrate, Araria) and the respondent No.6 ( Superintendent of Police Araria) along with their respective subordinate officers decided to meet and interact directly with the affected villagers of the Bhajanpur at Forbeasganj for assessing the feasibility of reconstruction of the part of the boundary wall in a peaceful environment.” It is, thus, seen that on one side the developmental plan of the Government is at stake and on the another public uproar is anticipated by the respondent State. It further appears that respondents have already taken remedial steps in the matter inasmuch as alternative pathway/access has already been provided to the residents of the affected village. It further appears that respondents have already taken remedial steps in the matter inasmuch as alternative pathway/access has already been provided to the residents of the affected village. The background in which the State respondents apprehend untoward incidents if the broken part of boundary wall is allowed to be constructed by the respondent BIADA has been highlighted by them. Considering the stand taken by the Principal Secretary Home ( Special), Govt. of Bihar noticed hereinabove this Court postpones consideration of the writ petition by 05 (five) weeks allowing the State respondents to take all needful and effective steps/measure to reach a common ground facilitating construction of the boundary wall and thereby allowing the unit set up by the petitioner to be functional which will, obviously, benefit not only the farmers growing Maize but will also provide employment opportunity to many of the local residents. The District Magistrate, Araria and Superintendent of Police Araria are expected to play a proactive role in the matter so that the industrialization programmes/policy of the Government is not hindered. This Court, for the present, leaves it open to the District Magistrate, Araria and Superintendent of Police Araria to consider feasibility of permitting the BIADA to initiate construction of broken portion of the boundary wall of the industrial premise allotted to the petitioner in a phased manner. Both the parties are granted liberty to place on record by way of supplementary affidavit/counter affidavit the result of the endeavour taken in this behalf by the respondent State authorities. This Court would further expect that the Principal Secretary, Department of Home ( Special) Govt. of Bihar continue to monitor the initiatives taken in this regard by the District Administration. Post this matter after 05 (five) weeks under the heading “For Admission-I”. 15. Thereafter an order was passed by this Court on 22.10.2013 that since a similar matter relating to the same dispute was pending consideration before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 195/2011 this case should be heard only after disposal of that petition by the Apex Court. 16. 15. Thereafter an order was passed by this Court on 22.10.2013 that since a similar matter relating to the same dispute was pending consideration before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 195/2011 this case should be heard only after disposal of that petition by the Apex Court. 16. Ultimately in view of consent of the parties who had agreed to proceed in the matter without awaiting the result of the case in the Supreme Court the case was heard on 23.1.2015 and an order was passed for constituting a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar and consisting of Home Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Industrial Development Commissioner, the Managing Director, BIADA as well as Collector and the Superintendent of Police to go into the issue of finding out the solution of construction of the boundary wall. The aforesaid order of this Court dated 23.1.2015 reads as follows: “ Heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the past development in this case emanating from the lease of land given by the BIADA to the petitioner for undertaking industrial activity and opposition by some persons in allowing the petitioner to continue with such industrial activity as also leading to an unfortunate incidence of firing killing four persons of the minority community at the spot, the effort of the State Government to find solution by giving out a press communiqué on 2.6.2014 and still no headway being made to allow the petitioner to continue with its industrial activity and in fact filing of an affidavit before this Court by the Home Secretary on 4.9.2014 informing that the atmosphere is not congenial and conducive to allow the petitioner to undertake industrial activity, are much inter related links of the chain in which now a final decision has to be taken one way or the other because the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain state of limbo for an indefinite period. In the opinion of this court there can be only two possible solution of the issue, being raised in this writ application namely, either the petitioner is allowed to be continued with its industrial activity by providing necessary help and support of the law and order machinery or the petitioner is asked to wind up its establishment by cancellation of lease because the State and its officers are not in a position to provide conducive atmosphere for undertaking the industrial activity by the petitioner. Therefore, before this Court would pass a final order on the basis of the materials existing on record, it would direct that a committee, headed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar also consisting of the Home Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Industrial Development Commissioner, the Managing Director of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, the Collector and Superintendent of Police of Araria District as well as the petitioner and its members will go into the issue of finding out solution of the problem. The aforesaid committee having head its meeting as also inspection of location at the spot would submit its report to this Court within a period of three months from today clearly spelling out either of the two options, namely, continuance of the petitioner with industrial activity on the plot in question or cancellation of the allotment of plot of the petitioner leading to winding up of the industries sought to be set up by the petitioner. The Committee, while undertaking such exercise, must keep in mind that it is the primal duty of the State to maintain law and order for providing security of the person and property of a citizen which would, of course include also an industrialist like the petitioner by way of providing a conducive atmosphere for industrial growth of this State. Put up this case again under the same heading on 6th May, 2015 as a tied up matter.” 17. Pursuant to aforesaid order of this Court Mr. Lalit Kishore PAAG, appearing on behalf of BIADA and State has filed two separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. Put up this case again under the same heading on 6th May, 2015 as a tied up matter.” 17. Pursuant to aforesaid order of this Court Mr. Lalit Kishore PAAG, appearing on behalf of BIADA and State has filed two separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 sworn by Deputy Director, Technical it has been stated that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.01.2015, high level committee headed by Chief Secretary had gone into the issue to find out the solution of the problem on 28.02.2015, certain decisions were taken as was duly notified and circulated by the Collector of Araria district in his memo no. 507 dated 02.03.2015. 507 dated 02.03.2015. The proceeding of this meeting dated 28.02.2015 will have a bearing on the result of this case and therefore is quoted hereinbelow:- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0&20087@2012 esa fnukad 23-01-2015 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh v/;{krk esa Hktuiqj ds xzkeh.kksa ds lkFk dh xbZ cSBd fnukad 28-02-2015 dh mifLFkfr ,oa dk;Zokgh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mifLFkfr % layXu ¼14 iUus½AA lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 2087@2012 ¼esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0 ouke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 23-01-2015 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fnukad 28-02-2015 dks Hktuiqj xkao esa eq[; lfpo] fcgkj iVuk iz/kku lfpo] m|ksx foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk] iz/kku lfpo] x`g foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk] iz/kku lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx≶ izca/k funs'kd] fc;kMk] izeaMyh; vk;qDr] iwf.kZ;ka iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd] iwf.kZ;ka ftyk inkf/kdkjh vjfj;k] iqfyl v/kh{kd] vjfj;k] Hktuiqj ds xazkeh.kksa] Jh v'kksd dqekj pkS/kjh] izksijkbZVj] esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0 ,oa vU; x.kekU; O;fDr;ksa] iqfyl ,oa iz'kklfud inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh mifLFkfr esa cSBd dh xbZA bl cSBd esa fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy, x,& eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 19-02-2015 ds vijkg~u 4 cts muds dk;kZy; d{k esa vkgwr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuq:i ftyk inkf/kdkjh] vjfj;k dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 23-02-2015 dks Hktuiqj xzke esa vk;ksftr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; dks mifLFkr xzkeh.kksa ,oa vU; x.kekU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk lEiq"V fd;k x;k ,oa g"kZ ds lkFk viuh lgefr nh xbZA 2- xzkeh.kksa us fuEukafdr fodkl dk;ksZa dks Hkh djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k& i- jkuhxat jksM ls Hktuiqj xkao esa tkusokyh lM+d dk fuekZ.kA ii- izkFkfed fo|ky;] Hktuiqj esa vfrfjDr oxZ d{k dk fuek.kZA iii- cjlkr ds fnuksa esa xkao ess gksusokyh ty&teko dh leL;k dk fujkdj.kA iv- xkao esa is;ty dh leqfpr O;oLFkkA v- xkao esa vofLFkr izkbZosV enjlk dk th.kksZ}kjA vi- bl ekeys esa ntZ eqdnek dks okkil fy;k tkukA bl laca/k esa xr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuq:i vkt dh cSBd esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd lacaf/kr foHkkxksa ds }kjk fu;ekuqlkj vxzsRrj dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 3- ftyk inkf/kdkjh] vjfj;k }kjk cSBd ds nkSjku tkudkjh nh xbZ fd fnukad 23-02-2015 dks fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuq:i Jh v'kksd dqekj pkS/kjh] izksijkbZVj] esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0 }kjk vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh Qkjfclxat dh mifLFkfr esa 04 e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks izfr vkfJr 1-78 ykk[k dh nj ls rFkk 09 ?kk;y O;fDr;kas dks izfr O;fDr 35&35 gtkj :i;s dh nj ls dqy 10-15 yk[k ¼nl yk[k iUnz gtkj½ :i;s dk Hkqxrku psd ds ek/;e ls fnukad 25-02-2015 dks dj fn;k x;k gSA eq[; lfpo us vius lEcks/ku ds i'pkr izca/k funs'kd] fc;kMk dks funsf'kr fd;k x;k fd os 'kh?kz gh Qkjfclxat iz[kaM dk;kZy; ds ckmUMzh oky ds nf{k.k 20 QhV jkLrs dk fuekZ.k ckmUMzh oky dk fuekZ.k ,oa i;kZIr jks'kuh dh O;oLFkk lqfuf'pr djsaxsaA var esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds /kU;okn Kkiu ds i'pkr vkt dh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh xbZA g0@& ftyk inkf/kdkjh vjfj;k Kkikad 507 @lh0] vjfj;k fnukad 02oha ekpZ 2015** 18. In the said affidavit, it has also been stated that the petitioner’s representative had paid 10.15. lacs to the victims and a direction was issued upon the Managing Director of the BIADA by the then Secretary to erect boundary wall as also arrange for sufficient street light. The affidavit also contains the details of the action taken by the BIADA in support of which the letter of the BIADA dated 17.04.2015 has been enclosed which reads as follows:- fcgkj vkS|ksfxd {ks= fodkl izkf/kdkj izFke ry] m|kasx Hkou] iwohZ xkka/kh eSnku] iVuk&800004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i=kad 1578 @ 511@ DEV/BIADA/2011 fnukad 17@04@15 izs"kd] dk;Zdkjh funs'kd fc;kMk] iVuka lsok esa] mi lfpo m|ksx foHkkx fcgkj] iVukA fo"k;& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 20087@2012 esa fnukad 23-01-2015 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh v/;{krk esa Hktuiqj ds xzkeh.kksa ds lkFk dh cSBd fnukad 28-02-2015 dks mifLFkfr ,oa dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esaA izlax& i=kad 1000 fnukad 10-03-2015 egk'k;] mi;qZDr izlkafxd i= esa funs'k ds dze esa lwfpr djuk gS fd Qkjfclxat iz[kaM dk;kZy; ds ckmUMzh oky ds nf{k.k 20 QhV jkLrs dk fuekZ.k ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds le{k dk;Z izkjaHk dj fn;k x;k gSA dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fc;kMk ds }kjk dk;Z dk izxfr izfrosnu izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS ftls layXu dj Hkonh; dks vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA vuqyXud ;Fkk of.kZrA fo'oklHkktu g0@& 17@4@15 dk;Zdkjh funs'kd** 19. Let it be noted that BIADA also has filed its separate supplementary counter affidavit, wherein, full details have been given as with regard to steps taken for enabling the petitioner to start its activities. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the letter of the Collector in memo no. Let it be noted that BIADA also has filed its separate supplementary counter affidavit, wherein, full details have been given as with regard to steps taken for enabling the petitioner to start its activities. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the letter of the Collector in memo no. 449 dated 24.02.2015 which reads as follows:- **ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0&20087@2012 esa fnukad 23-01-2015 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh] vjfj;k dh v/;{krk esa Hktuiqj ds xzkeh.kksa ds lkFk dh xbZ cSBd dh mifLFkfr ,oa dk;Zokgh%& --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mifLFkfr % layXu ¼7 iUus½AA lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 20087@2012 ¼esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0 ouke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 23-01-2015 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 19-02-2015 dks vijkg~u 4-00 cts muds dk;kZy; d{k esa ,d cSBd vkgwr dh xbZ FkhA bl cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuq:i v|ksgLrk{kjh }kjk fnukad 23-02-2015 dks Hktuiqj xkao esa xzkeh.kksa] jh v'kksd dqekj pkS/kjh] izksijkbZVj] esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0] Jh HkksxsUnz yky] dk;Zdkjh funs'kd] fc;kMk ,oa vU; x.kekU; O;fDr;ksa] iqfyl ,oa iz'kklfud inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh mifLFkfr esa ,d cSBd dh xbZ] ftlesa xzkeh.kksa }kjk fnukad 18-02-2015 dks fn, x, vH;kosnu ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fuEukafdr fu.kZ; loZ lEefr ls fy, x,%& 1- Jh ulhe vgen] v/;{k] jk"Vhz; vYila[;d vk;ksx dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 28-05-2014 dks vk;ksftr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuq:i fnukad 03-06-2011 dks iqfyl Qk;fjax esa e`r 04 e`rdksa ds oS/k vkfJrksa dks 1-75 yk[k :i;s izfr ifjokj dh nj ls ,oa 09 ?kk;yksa dks 35&35 gtkj izR;sd dh nj ls eqvkotk jkf'k esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0fy0 ds izksijkbZVj Jh v'kksd dqekj pkS/kjh }kjk fn, tkus ls lacaf/kr fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuq:i fnukad 25-02-2015 dks mij of.kZr jkf'k ls lacaf/kr psd vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] Qkjfclxat dh mifLFkfr esa e`rdksa ds oS/k okfjlku dks miyc/k djk fn;k tk;sxkA 2- fc;kMk esa fuekZ.kk/khu esllZ vkSjks lqUnje bUVjus'kuy izk0 fy0 QSDVjh ds mRrj rFkk Qkjfclxat iz[kaM dk;kZy; ds ckmUMzh oky ds nf{k.k 20 QhV dk jkLrk fc;kMk dh tehu ij fc;kMk }kjk rS;kj dj miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA 3- fc;kMk }kjk miyC/k djkbZ tkusokyh 20 QhV jkLrs dk fuekZ.k] bl vkSj ckmUMzh oky dk fuekZ.k vkSj cUn QSDVzh ds fuekZ.k gsrq vxzsrj dkjZokbZ ,d lkFk izkjEHk fd, tk;saxsA 4- mifLFkr xzkeh.kksa ds bl fu.kZ; ij fd bl xksyh dkaM ls lacaf/kr Fkkus esa ntZ fofHkUu dk.Mksa dks okil djk;k tk;] bl ij loZlEefr ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd mij of.kZr dafMdkvksa eas fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuq:i dk;ksaZa ds iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr bu dkaMksa ds okil ysus ds laca/k eas fof/k lEer fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA 5- xzkeh.kksa ds fodkl ls lacaf/kr vU; dk;ksZa ds laca/k esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vkilh fo'okl ds LFkkfir gksus ds i'pkr bl xkao ds fodkl gsrq Hkh leqfpr dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA var esa vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] Qkjfclxat ds /kU;okn Kkiu ds ckn cSBd dh dk;kZokgh lekIr dh xbZA g0@& ftyk inkf/kdkjh vjfj;k Kkikad 449 @lh0 vjfj;k] fnukad 24 oh0 Qjojh 2015** 20. BIADA in order to satisfy this Court that the meeting held on 23.01.2015, was duly attended by not only the officials and representative of the petitioner but as many as 26 villagers, has produced the attendance sheet and also relied on the subsequent letter of the Collector of Araria district dated 02.03.2015. As a matter of fact BIADA has placed on record the consequential steps taken in pursuance to the directions issued by the Industry Department as contained in letter dated 10.03.2015, which would go to show that construction of boundary wall and road was to be made. The letter of the BIADA dated 10.04.2015 is also an evidence to the fact that tender was invited for construction of road in the southern direction, erection of boundary wall, construction of culvert and making arrangement of street light. 21. All these developments which have taken place subsequent to the order of this Court dated 23.1.2015 would go to show that the officials of the State of Bihar and BIADA had opted for first of the two options as recorded in the order dated 23.01.2015, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “In the opinion of this Court there can be only two possible solution of the issue, being raised in this writ application namely, either the petitioner is allowed to be continued with its industrial activity by providing necessary help and support of the law and order machinery or the petitioner is asked to wind up its establishment by cancellation of lease because the State and its officers are not in a position to provide conducive atmosphere for undertaking the industrial activity by the petitioner.” 22. As noted above, the State now has taken all necessary steps with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner for producing conducive atmosphere in which the petitioner can start its industrial activity. In such a situation the very purpose of filing of this writ application now stands served. 23. Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, wants this writ application to be kept pending till steps are taken by the officials of the State of Bihar and BIADA. 24. In such a situation the very purpose of filing of this writ application now stands served. 23. Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, wants this writ application to be kept pending till steps are taken by the officials of the State of Bihar and BIADA. 24. This Court does not feel necessity for now keeping this writ application pending because the State has elected the aforesaid first of the two options, namely, allowing the petitioner to continue with its industrial activity by providing necessary help and support of the law and order machinery, it is always expected that the things will be taken to its logical conclusion so that the petitioner can achieve the purpose for which it has set up the industry. 25. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.