ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents – Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority. 2. The petitioner, in this case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar in Appeal Case No. 35/2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order cancelling the allotment of his industrial plot has been dismissed. 3. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice wherein the very cancellation order dated 19.05.2007 was not served upon the petitioner and further the Appellate Authority could not appreciate that the inquiries conducted by the Department during the pendency of the appeal cannot be taken to be a conclusive proof of fact that the unit in question is not functioning. 4. Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned counsel representing the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in short the ‘BIADA’) submits that these are the matters of allotment of industrial plots and should be considered from a larger public interest purview. It is his submission that an individual interest of the petitioner has to be out-weighed against the larger public interest on the face of the materials which have come on the record. Learned counsel submits that the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of cancellation passed in the year 2007 was not served upon the petitioner is not correct inasmuch as the ‘BIADA’ has produced the proof of service by placing on record the proof that the said decision cancelling the allotment of the petitioner was sent through Currier and that was not returned unserved. Further learned counsel submits that the industrial plot was given to the petitioner for carrying industrial activity but instead of carrying the industrial activity the petitioner was utilizing the industrial plot for some kind of residential purpose. 5. In this connection, attention of this court has been drawn towards the findings which have been recorded by the Appellate Authority on the strength of the inquiry report submitted after the spot verification on 23.05.2019. 6. Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned counsel has also drawn attention of this court to show from Annexure ‘11’ and ‘12’ to the writ application itself that in the year 2014 the petitioner has shown his total sale/turnover of Rs. 9,450/-. 6. Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned counsel has also drawn attention of this court to show from Annexure ‘11’ and ‘12’ to the writ application itself that in the year 2014 the petitioner has shown his total sale/turnover of Rs. 9,450/-. He has further shown from the electricity bill of the year 2001 that the past and present reading remained the same which demonstrate that there was no consumption of electricity in running the unit. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula so as to defeat the larger public interest. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this court finds that it is a case in which in the year 1996 the industrial plot was allotted to the petitioner, the purpose behind the same was setting up of an industry but the materials available on the record shows that no industrial activities were going on for the last several years. In the concluding part of the order the appellate authority has recorded the facts which have been revealed in course of spot inspection and those are being reproduced hereunder: - m|ksx foHkkx ds i=kad 2233 fnukad 22-05-2019 }kjk Jh vfuy dqekj >k] voj lfpo] m|ksx foHkkx ,oa Jh jk/kk d`".k pkSgku] iz'kk[kk inkf/kdkjh ¼iz'kk[kk&5½ bdkbZ ds fujh{k.k gsrq izkf/kd`r djrs gq, fnukad 23-05-19 dks iwokZg~u esa fujh{k.k dj vfoyac izfrosnu foHkkx dks miyC/k djkus gsrq funZs'k fn;k x;kA Jh >k ,oa Jh pkSgku }kjk fnukad 23-05-19 dks bdkbZ dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k izfrosnu esa muds }kjk crk;k x;k fd fujh{k.k ds Øe esa bdkbZ iw.kZr% can iM+h gqbZ FkhA nks ds;jVsdj can bdkbZ dh ns[k&js[k djrs gq, ik, x,A bdkbZ esa dksbZ Hkh vkS|ksfxd xfrfof/k gksrh gqbZ ugha ik;h x;hA es0 uVjkt dsfedYl] vkS|ksfxd {ks=] Qrqgk ds lRokf/kdkjh Jh larks"k dqekj tkyku fujh{k.k ds nkSjku bdkbZ esa mifLFkr ugha FksA uVjkt dsfedYl dks Qrqgk esa jsftu dk m|ksx LFkkiuk gsrq o"kZ 1996 esa fc;kMk }kjk Hkwfe vkoafVr dh x;h Fkh ijarq fujh{k.k ds Øe esa ik;k x;k fd jsftu dsfedy dk 15&20 [kkyh MCck tks HkkSfrd :i ls ns[kus ij o"kksZa iqjkuk Fkk tks bdkbZ esa j[kk gqvk FkkA 04&05 MCck esa jsftu dsfedy j[kk ik;k x;k ijarq MCcs dks ns[kus ls ;g izrhr gqvk fd blesa j[ks jsftu dks b/kj ,d&nks fnu igys ykdj j[kk x;k gSA bdkbZ ds vUnj ds lHkh dejk th.kZ'kh.kZ voLFkk esa [kkyh ik;k x;kA lkFk gh bdkbZ ifjlj esa Hkh vkS|ksfxd xfrfof/k dk dksbZ e'khujh dk;Zjr ugha ik;k x;kA IykbZoqM cukus dk dqN lkeku bdkbZ ifjlj esa igys ls j[kk ik;k x;k ftlij iwjk /kwy Hkjk gqvk Fkk vFkkZr b/kj fudV Hkfo"; esa blls dksbZ vkS|ksfxd xfrfof/k dh xbZ izrhr ugha gksrh gSA Jh >k ,oa Jh pkSgku }kjk fujh{k.k izfrosnu ds fu"d"kZ esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd es0 uVjkt dsfedYl] vkS|ksfxd {ks=] Qrqgk esa dksbZ Hkh vkS|ksfxd dk;Zo"kksZa o"kZ iwoZ ls lapkfyr dh xbZ izrhr ugha gksrh gSA bl bdkbZ esa dksbZ Hkh e'khujh ;k vU; dksbZ Hkh lkexzh ,sls ugha ik, x, ftlls ;g izrhr gks fd iwoZ esa Hkh ;g bdkbZ dHkh dk;Zjr jgh gksxhA QSDVªh ds HkkSfrd tkap djus ds mijkar fc;kMk ds }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd og Deserted gSA blds tokc esa vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk crk;k x;k fd tkap izfrosnu esa ogka vkoklh; fLFkfr ,oa 'ksM yxk gksus dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dqN yksxksa ds fuokl djus dk Hkh ftØ fd;k x;k gSA muds }kjk crk;k x;k fd tc QSDVªh Deserted gS rks ogka yksxksa ds jgus dk izek.k dSls feykA mudk dguk gS fd ogka ij dke djus okys dehZ gh jg jgsa gSaA vr% mDr ekeys esa miyC/k djk;s x;s lk{; ,oa vfHkys[k dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar vihy vH;kosnu vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** 8. With the writ application no prima-facie material has been brought on record to controvert the findings and as such this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not exercise it’s power of judicial review to interfere with the impugned order in absence of any material to show that the finding is perverse and requires any interference. It is a case for issuance of a writ of certiorari and the principle is well-settled that while exercising it’s power to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari the Court under Article 226 does not sit in appeal and does not exercise an appellate power. The writ of certiorari is issued only when the court finds that the impugned order suffers from perversity. The settled proposition of law is that the writ of certiorari should not be issued only on making out of a legal point. 9. In the opinion of this court, even that legal point is missing. Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The Writ Application is dismissed.