Order : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By order at Annexure4 dated 01.02.2003, passed by Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur ('AIADA' for short), the allotment of Plot to M/s. D.N. Sasmal & Company for an area of 15000 Sq. Ft. made through Letter No. 1618, dated 31.01.1973 was cancelled. The impugned order also canceled the additional allotment of 15000 Sq. Ft. made to the allottee vide letter no. 6156, dated 31.12.1974. The reasons in the impugned order disclose that the allottee – M/s. D.N. Sasmal & Company was unable to run the industry. Consequent thereto the premium deposited as a cost of land was also forfeited. 3. One M/s. Oak & Woods Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. was allotted the said land on 01.02.2003 (Annexure3). However, the allotment of land to M/s. Oak & Woods Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. also stood canceled on 12.02.2014. One Rajnish Kumar Singh approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1365 of 2015 seeking a direction upon the respondents – AIADA to decide pending application for recognizing partnership firm and consequential change in records. He contended that proprietor of M/s. D.N. Sasmal & Company entered into partnership agreement with the petitioner – Rajnish Kumar Singh inducting him as a partner and on 10.10.1995, the Managing Director, AIADA was accordingly communicated also. An application in prescribed format was submitted on 15.04.1997 seeking change of constitution of Firm and recognition by AIADA. He contended that the business in the name of partnership firm was continued. The said D.N. Sasmal died on 14.12.2001 and on coming to know of the allotment of plot to M/s. Oak & Woods Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. and their subsequent cancellation vide order dated 12.02.2014, said Rajnish Kumar Singh approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2015 however did not find any reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it on the following grounds. “4. A perusal of letters dated 10.10.1995 and 15.04.1997 discloses that the said communications were sent by the petitioner claiming himself a partner in M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company. In the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that when communications dated 10.10.1995 and 15.04.1997 were sent by him, D. N. Sasmal was alive. “4. A perusal of letters dated 10.10.1995 and 15.04.1997 discloses that the said communications were sent by the petitioner claiming himself a partner in M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company. In the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that when communications dated 10.10.1995 and 15.04.1997 were sent by him, D. N. Sasmal was alive. It is not in dispute that D. N. Sasmal did not send any communication to the respondent AIADA nor submitted an affidavit signed by him to AIADA. It is averred that Mr. D.N. Sasmal died on 14.12.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that along with communication dated 10.10.1995 a copy of partnership deed signed by Mr. D. N. Sasmal and the petitioner was forwarded to AIADA and therefore, AIADA could have enquired about the genuineness of the partnership deed. I am of the opinion that no such procedure is prescribed in law which casts a duty upon the respondent AIADA to make enquiries on an application submitted by a stranger. The petitioner has asserted that Mr. D.N. Sasmal died on 14.12.2001 however, on the basis of a forged deed of surrender dated 05.11.2002, the allotment in favour of M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company was cancelled and the land in question was allotted to M/s. Oak and Wood Bottlers Private Limited. The petitioner's father was made a Director in M/s. Oak and Wood Bottlers Private Limited which took over the equipment and business of M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company. Finally, vide order dated 12.02.2014 the allotment made in favour of M/s. Oak and Wood Bottlers Private Limited also stood cancelled. And thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Whether a partnership deed was executed between the petitioner and late Mr. D. N. Sasmal are not and whether a forged deed of surrender dated 05.11.2002 was submitted to respondent AIADA or not, are the questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceeding. Moreover, the petitioner claiming himself partner in M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company has no legal right to seek change in the constitution of M/s D.N. Sasmal and Company. The original allottee has died and his legal heirs and survivors have not claimed allotment in their favour. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” 5. The original allottee has died and his legal heirs and survivors have not claimed allotment in their favour. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” 5. Thereafter, only the present petitioner claiming herself to be daughter of D.N. Sasmal has approached this Court for quashing the order of cancellation of allotment dated 01.02.2003 on the ground that impugned order is without notice or opportunity to the original allottee or the legal heirs. 6. Learned counsel for AIADA has opposed the prayer and submitted that the cause is grossly belated and suffers from serious latches as well. After the cancellation of allotment of M/s. D.N. Sasmal & Company, a fresh allotment was made in favour of M/s. Oak & Wood Bottlers whose allotment was also canceled vide order dated 12.02.2014. Learned Single Judge in the case of Rajnish Kumar Singh [W.P.(C) No. 1365 of 2015] had also observed that whether a partnership deed was executed between the said petitioner and Late D.N. Sasmal or not and whether a forged deed of surrender dated 05.11.2002 was submitted to respondent – AIADA or not, are questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. It is submitted that after 13 years of cancellation of allotment, this Court should therefore refuse to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches itself. 7. I have considered the submission of the parties in light of the material facts pleaded and the Judgments cited by counsel for the parties in the case of Rajnish Kumar Singh (Supra) concerning the same allotment. 8. Having given anxious thought to the submission of the petitioner and the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, this Court is not convinced that at this point of time after 13 years of cancellation and fresh allotment made to a new person and its subsequent cancellation in the year 2014, the petitioner has a reasonable explanation for delay and latches on her part in assailing the impugned order now. It cannot be countenanced that the petitioner as the legal heir of D.N. Sasmal would be completely ignorant of the cancellation of allotment for 13 long years to now awake from the slumber and agitate the instant grievance in the present writ petition. It cannot be countenanced that the petitioner as the legal heir of D.N. Sasmal would be completely ignorant of the cancellation of allotment for 13 long years to now awake from the slumber and agitate the instant grievance in the present writ petition. In such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the gross delay and latches on her part in seeking quashing of the order dated 01.02.2003 of cancellation of allotment in the name of D.N. Sasmal & Company as legal heir of D.N. Sasmal. 9. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.