S. KUMAR, J.:–I.A. Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed on behalf of petitioner are allowed and shall form part of this writ petition. C.W.J.C. No.7160 of 2020: 2. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:— (i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order as contained under Letter No.1606/D dated 06.06.2020, whereby and wherunder the representation dated 19.03.2020 submitted by petitioner along with project report has been rejected on nonest ground and without affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to it. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to move on with the project in the industrial interest of the State of Bihar. (iii) For declaration that the impugned order of rejection dated 06.06.2020 takes away the fundamental right of petitioner to establish industry as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (iv) For quashing of notice dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ application) published by BIADA in local dailies to comply the directions given in the said notice within 15 days otherwise action shall be taken in accordance with law. (v) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions for quashing the office order as contained under memo no.2447/D dated 19.08.2020, by which the diversification proposal submitted by petitioner has been rejected and allotment of land has been cancelled without serving any show cause notice in this regard. (vi) For quashing of order contained in Memo No.3562/D dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-14) issued by the Executive Director, BIADA, Patna whereby and whereunder the diversification proposal submitted by the petitioner has been rejected and allotment of land has been cancelled. (vii) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled in present facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Petitioner’s company was allotted land measuring 1,01,216 square feet appertaining to plot Nos.A/4 and A/5 of the industrial area, Patliputra, Patna for establishment of sheet metal components for automobiles, railway and telecommunication along with their casting industry. 4. Petitioner’s company as an ancillary unit of TELCO manufactured the automobile part but after bifurcation of State of Bihar in the year 2000 and due to change in policy of TELCO, the manufacturing activity of petitioner’s company stopped after being in operation for more than three decades. 5. 4. Petitioner’s company as an ancillary unit of TELCO manufactured the automobile part but after bifurcation of State of Bihar in the year 2000 and due to change in policy of TELCO, the manufacturing activity of petitioner’s company stopped after being in operation for more than three decades. 5. The respondent authorities in a cyclostyle order that it had not established industry, cancelled the allotment and registration of the petitioner along with others vide order dated 14.12.2006. 6. Petitioner’s company against the order of cancellation, filed writ petition being CWJC No.7359 of 2007 and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.03.2008 allowed the writ petition along with other analogs cases and the allotment of land and lease deed was restored in favour of petitioner’s company, subject to outcome of LPA, S.L.P. 7. The respondent authorities filed an appeal being LPA No.353 of 2008 (BIADA and others Vs. Deepak Paints Private Limited and other analogous cases) and this Hon’ble Court disposed of the application with liberty to petitioner and other similarly placed industrial units for diversification of its project, which reads as follows:— “Under these circumstances, we dispose of the appeals by modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge to the following effect: (A) The orders of cancellation of leases or allotment of the land to the respondents herein shall stand set aside, but they are given six months time from today either to establish the industries, wherever they are not established, or to revive the industries, if they were already established, but have become sick. (B) If any of the respondents, i.e. the writ petitioners, intend to go for diversification, any application in that behalf shall be made within two months from today. The concerned authority shall take decision in one month thereafter. If permission for diversification is granted, reasonable time shall be granted by the concerned authority, for establishment or modification. (C) In default, i.e. if industry is not established or the closed one is not revived within the stipulated time, it shall be open to the authorities to resume the land for further allotment by inviting applications from the intending entrepreneurs, but not through individual allotments. Such of the respondents who have either established the industries or have restarted the closed ones during the pendency of these appeals need not take any steps. Such of the respondents who have either established the industries or have restarted the closed ones during the pendency of these appeals need not take any steps. If any factors intervene for delayed commencement of production, it shall be open for the entrepreneurs to seek extension of time from the concerned authority.” 8. As the petitioner’s company was an ancillary unit of TELCO and manufacturing was stopped for the reasons which were not attributable to petitioner, in light of liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court, petitioner immediately submitted detailed project report along with diversification proposal with respect to plot Nos.A/4 and A/5 on 11.05.2015 and diversification was sought to establish hospital and diagnosis centre as unit I and Shopping Mall, Family Entertainment Centre, Food Court, Banquet Hall, Vehicle Service Centre as unit II. However, said proposal was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2015 on the ground that land will be allowed to be utilized only for IT park including ITES (manufacturing/processing) Park and proposals are not in terms of order as contained in memo no.2170 dated 17.5.2013. 9. It is submitted that from contents of communication, it is apparent that respondent authority intends to restrict the diversification proposal to IT park, to which petitioner’s company has no expertise. 10. Petitioner challenged said rejection by filing CWJC No.2839 of 2019 and this Hon’ble Court by order dated 20.02.2020 granted liberty to petitioner to file a fresh proposal for diversification in terms of order dated 18.03.2015 passed in LPA No.353 of 2008, whereupon BIADA to take appropriate decision. 11. Petitioner submitted two fresh proposals to BIADA with respect to plot no.A/4 and A/5 in the light of the order dated 18.03.2015 passed in LPA No.353 of 2008 and submitted two proposals dated 19.3.2020 for establishing medical services with research facilities on plot no.A/5 and for entertainment centre on plot no.A/4. However, said proposals were again rejected by BIADA by order dated 06.06.2020 as impugned in the writ petition. 12. Two proposals submitted by petitioner’s company was rejected on the ground that proposal is not in accordance with priority list of Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2016 and diversification can be permitted only with respect to industries under Priority List-I. 13. However, said proposals were again rejected by BIADA by order dated 06.06.2020 as impugned in the writ petition. 12. Two proposals submitted by petitioner’s company was rejected on the ground that proposal is not in accordance with priority list of Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2016 and diversification can be permitted only with respect to industries under Priority List-I. 13. During pendncey of writ petition on 31.7.2020, a notice was published in local dailies directing petitioner to close all unauthorized shops opened into plot in question and it further stated that in compliance of order dated 20.2.2020 passed in CWJC No.2839 of 2019, no proposal was submitted, therefore, direction was given to comply the direction of the aforesaid notice within 15 days otherwise necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law. 14. It was submitted by the petitioner that said notice was factually incorrect and petitioner on 7.8.2020 filed a detailed and exhaustive reply which was received on 10.8.2020 by BIADA. Along with said reply, petitioner also submitted a proposal dated 29.6.2020 for establishment of dry-ware house with cleaning and drying facilities in terms of amendment in Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016. 15. Present case was listed before Hon’ble Single Judge on 19.08.2020 and after hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents to file counter affidavit within four weeks with a further direction that the fresh proposal submitted by the petitioner for diversification may be considered within six weeks and, in the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 16. Petitioner received an office order contained in memo dated 19.8.2020 whereby and whereunder, the proposal of the petitioner for diversification for setting out warehousing-dry ware house with cleaning and drying facilities were rejected as same does not come within the priority list under Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 and the land allotted to the petitioner being plot Nos.A/4 and A/5 were also cancelled. 17. Subsequently, vide memo no.3562/D dated 26.11.2020, same order was reiterated by which, diversification proposal submitted by petitioner was rejected. 18. It is submitted that Industrial Incentive Policy, 2016 categorizes the priorities area but in no way compels an entrepreneur to establish a particular industry and there is no bar in the 2016 policy, which bars diversification in non-priority area. Only condition is that it won’t receive any incentive from the State Government. 19. 18. It is submitted that Industrial Incentive Policy, 2016 categorizes the priorities area but in no way compels an entrepreneur to establish a particular industry and there is no bar in the 2016 policy, which bars diversification in non-priority area. Only condition is that it won’t receive any incentive from the State Government. 19. It is further submitted that respondent authorities while considering the diversification proposal is required only to see whether it falls in category of industry and proposal is not in negative list. The proposal for establishment of hospital and Family entertainment Centre with industrial cluster are industry and respondent authorities have granted permission to several units which are operational in the area. 20. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that rejection of proposal of petitioner for diversification is based on misreading of the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016. Policy is an incentivising policy for the respective sectors mentioned therein in priority list. If the proposed industry does not fall within the ambit of the policy, then no incentive can be granted to such industrial units. However, the policy itself cannot be read as a bar to carry on any trade or business. Perusal of order dated 18.03.2015 passed in LPA No.353 of 2008 along with analogous cases, it would be apparent that this Hon’ble Court allowed diversification without any restriction. It was an open ended protection to diversify. 21. It is further submitted that the rejection of the proposal of petitioner for diversification on basis of Clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2(b) of the policy is preposterous. Said clauses of the policy pertains to fresh allotment of BIADA land and petitioner’s case is not of fresh allotment of land rather of diversification as stipulated in Clause 6(b) of the 2016, Policy. List I is a priority list and List II is negative list. Apart from these lists, there are various industries in non-priority sector but are permissible under the Industrial Policy and proposal of diversification for non-priority industries cannot be denied but only incentive can be denied which is confined to priority list I of 2016, Policy. 22. List I is a priority list and List II is negative list. Apart from these lists, there are various industries in non-priority sector but are permissible under the Industrial Policy and proposal of diversification for non-priority industries cannot be denied but only incentive can be denied which is confined to priority list I of 2016, Policy. 22. It is further submitted that under Annexure 1 2(a) of the Incentive Policy, 2016, micro-small and medium enterprises (MSME) has been defined as: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME): Government of Bihar follows the MSME definition laid down by Government of India as per MSME Act, 2006 (as updated from time to time). 23. After promulgation of the MSME Act, 2006, the Central Government has issued a notification bearing SO 1702 (A) dated 1.6.2020 (Annexure 12) wherein Small and Medium enterprise has been classified based on quantum of investment and turn over. The central government has obliterated distinction between manufacturer and service establishment. Previously, manufacturing enterprise and service enterprises were classified separately but now they have been clubbed together. 24. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for BIADA that as per Clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (Kha) of Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2006 only priority manufacturing sector are entitled for establishment of units on land of BIADA and, as such, his application for hospital, dry ware house and family entertainment centre is in teeth of provisions. 25. It is further submitted that the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in LPA No.353/2008 (BIADA Vs. M/s. Deepak Paints and Ors.) were not complied as there was time line fixed for diversification. That petitioner had illegally rented the premises for use as a godown on rent. 26. In pursuance to the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in CWJC no.2839 of 2019, petitioner proposed for opening up a hospital in plot No.A/5 and Family Entrancement Centre with industrial clusters on A/4 in terms of Section 14 of Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Act, 2016 read with Clause 5.2.2 of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016 was rejected being in consistent with 2016 Policy. 27. The proposal of warehousing and dry cleaning was not acceptable product within the aegis of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016 as not being in priority manufacturing centre under clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016. 28. 27. The proposal of warehousing and dry cleaning was not acceptable product within the aegis of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016 as not being in priority manufacturing centre under clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016. 28. Due to breach of terms of allotment, the allotment was cancelled on 18.08.2020 which was subsequently recalled due to the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.7160 of 2020. 29. For more clarity, stand of BIADA, as stated in their counter affidavit (relevant paragraphs) vis-a-vis pleadings of petitioner is reproduced below:— 30. BIADA in its counter affidavit has stated that under Investment Policy of 2016, only priority manufacturing sector under 2016 Policy have been granted BIADA land for opening of new unit as well as change of user. The relevant paragraph nos.26, 38 and 39 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of BIADA are reproduced below:— “26. That it is to submit and state that the petitioner after the decision of L.P.A. No.353/2008, BIADA Vs. Deepak Paints and Ors. has put forth two projects for the change firstly for the change of project to Shopping Mall, Family Entertainment Centre, Food Court, Banquet Hall, vehicle Service Centre and Hospital and diagnostic Centre. The aforesaid proposal for the diversification was considered by the Authority and it was found that the BIADA Board of Director’s in its 42nd Meeting has taken a decision regarding the Service Sector and according to it the aforesaid proposal was rejected by the Authority vide letter No.3590 dated 29.07.2015 in terms of the Office order vide Memo No.3170 dated 17.05.2013. 38. That it is further submitted that the Writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.2839/2019, M/s Civ Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BIADA & Ors was disposed of vide order dated 20.02.2020 with following observations. “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and appropriate to dispose off the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for diversification in terms of the order dated 18.03.2015, passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. no.353 of 2008 within a period of four weeks from today, whereupon BIADA would take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously. 39. 39. That it is further submitted that in the pursuance of the aforesaid order of Hon’ble High Court a proposal for diversification was submitted along with Project Report for the establishment of industrial cluster and family entertainment centre, medical service and research centre. The aforesaid proposal for diversification was rejected vide letter No.1606/D dated 06.06.2020 & letter No.1631/D dated 08.06.2020 on the ground that the aforesaid proposal for diversification does not fall within the priority sector as elucidated under Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 and in terms of Clause 5.2.1 & 5.2.2(b) of Bihar industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016.” 31. Subsequent proposal of petitioner for diversification in warehousing, dry warehousing, cleaning and drying facilities were also rejected vide order dated 26.11.2020 and the relevant paragraph 43 and 47 are reproduced below:— “43. That it is further submitted that a paper publication was made on 31.07.2020 in daily newspaper of wide circulation whereby and whereunder the fact regarding the notice vide letter no.1758/D dated 18.06.2020 was appraised and a last opportunity was given and thereafter the petitioner on 10-08-2020 has submitted a proposal for diversification for Warehousing, Dry Warehousing with cleaning and drying facility. However there was still embargo on the aforesaid project in terms of Clause 5.2.1 & 5.2.2(b) of Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 whereby and whereunder the proposal was to be made for manufacturing unit and not service sector. 47. That is is further submitted that in compliance of order dated 19.08.2020 passed in the present Writ Application the proposal for diversification for Warehousing, Dry Warehousing with cleaning and drying facility was also considered. It was found that there was still embargo on the aforesaid project in terms of Clause 5.2.1 & 5.2.2(b) of Biahr Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 whereby and whereunder the proposal was to be made for manufacturing unit and not for service sector and subsequently the same was rejected vide Memo No.3562/D dated 26.11.2020” 32. BIADA has not denied acceptance of similar proposal established in the BIADA’s land rather has accepted that proposal of similar nature has been permitted by the BIADA but same relates to the investment policy prior to 2016 where manufacturing sector as well as service sector were permitted to establish their unit. The relevant paragraph no. 6 of second supplementary counter affidavit is reproduced below:— “6. The relevant paragraph no. 6 of second supplementary counter affidavit is reproduced below:— “6. That it is stated that the contents of Para No.4 of the second supplementary affidavit are misleading distorted, false and hence denied. It is denied that the respondents have allotted or allowed the change of product to the industrial units in service sector in contravention to Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 (BIPP, 2016). It is clarified that the units elucidated at point no.(i) to (xvi) of the second supplementary affidavit has been misinterpreted. Further, it is submitted that (I) UNO Digital Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Nutan Bhavya Rural Agro, (iii) Patliputra Infotech Pvt. Ltd., (vi) Guinea Motors Pvt. Ltd., (vii) Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd., (ix) Alankar Auto Sales, (x) CNS Hospital, (xiii) ICAI, (xiv) Bihar Trade Tower & (xvi) P & M Infrastructure situated at Industrial Area, Patliputra have been allotted land/product was changed prior to coming into force of Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 when no such prohibition for service sector was there.” 33. While hearing the matter, this Court by order dated 01.09.2022 made following query from the counsel of BIADA, which is reproduced below:— “No one appears on behalf of the State. Shri Vivek Prasad, G.P. 7, who normally appears before us, is present in Court. We request him to assist this Court in the matter. Let a copy (English version) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Policy, 2016 along with all amendments be made available to us by the next date. Shri Prasad to obtain instruction as to whether the petitioner’s application for change of user to that of hospitality/setting up of a hospital and/or dry warehouse for food processing can be allowed to be established or not. List on 15th September, 2022.” 34. In response to said query, BIADA has filed a counter affidavit and relevant paragraph no.10 is reproduced below:— “10. That it is further stated that the land allotment within the Industrial Areas situated within the aegis of BIADA is guided by the specific provisions contained in Clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (kha) of the BIIPP, 2016 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the allotment of such lands situated at Industrial Areas of BIADA can only be done for priority manufacturing units only. As such, the averment of the petitioner for the establishment of hospitality /setting up of a hospital and/or dry warehouse for food processing in the lands of BIADA situated within the Industrial areas cannot be made as the same comes under service sector and doesn’t come within the priority manufacturing of BIIPP, 2016. Further, in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2022 of the Hon’ble Court a copy of the BIIPP, 2016 along with its all amendments are enclosed herewith.” 35. During pendency of writ petition, the State Government has amended the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 by resolution dated 14.10.2022 in which, BIADA’s land can be allotted for manufacturing unit as well as service sector unit. During pendency of writ petition, the State Government has amended the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 by resolution dated 14.10.2022 in which, BIADA’s land can be allotted for manufacturing unit as well as service sector unit. The resolution dated 14.10.2022 is reproduced below:— fcgkj ljdkj m|ksx foHkkx ladYi fo"k;%& fcgkj vkS|ksfxd fuos'k izksRlkgu uhfr] 2016 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèkr 2020½ esa la'kksèkuA 1- jkT; ds lexz ,oa lekos'kh fodkl dh izfrc}rk dh i`"BHkwfe esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fcgkj vkS|ksfxd fuos'k izksRlkgu uhfr] 2016 fnukad 01-09-2016 ds izHkko ls ykxw dh xbZ gS lkFk gh 29-06-2022 ds izHkko ls la'kksfèkr uhfr ykxw dh x;hA uhfr dks vkSj izHkkoh cukus gsrq blesa fuEufyf[kr la'kksèku fd;s x, gSa% 2- ¼d½ uhfr dh dafMdk&5-2-1 ds 'kh"kZ dks ^^izkFkfedrk okys {ks= dh ifj;kstukvksa ds fy, fjDr vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M dk vkoaVu** dks ^^fofHkUu vkS|ksfxd ifj;kstukvksa ds fy, fjDr vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M dk vkoaVu** ls izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA ¼[k½ uhfr dh dafMdk 5-2-1 dks fuEu izdkj izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA ^^fcgkj vkS|ksfxd {ks= fodkl izkfèkdkj ¼fc;kMk½ }kjk fu;a=k.kkèkhu vkS|ksfxd {ks=ksa esa fofuekZ.k djus okyh bdkb;ksa ,oa lsok iz{ks= esa fuEu izdkj dh bdkb;ksa dks tehu vkoafVr dh tk ldsxh& ¼1½ vkbZñVhñ ikdZ ¼fMtkbZu ,oa MsoyiesaV vkWiQ lkWÝVos;j] dkWy lsUVj] vkWuykbZu ijh{kk dsUnz ,oa bysDVªkWfud iQsfczds'ku½ ¼2½ LvkVZ vi dks&ofd±x Lisl ,oa LVkVZ vi gcA ¼3½ XkzsM&, os;jgkml ,oa ykWftfLVd ikdZ ¼fc;kMk }kjk fuèkkZfjr ekudksa ds vuq:i½ ¼4½ fjlpZ ySc@VsfLVax yScA** ¼10½ uhfr dh dafMdk 8¼[k½ dks fuEu izdkj izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gS& ^^fo|eku bdkb;k¡ vkS|ksfxd izksRlkgu uhfr ds vUrxZr fuèkkZfjr 'krksZa@njksa ds vuqlkj vuqnku izkIr djus ds fy, ;ksX; gksxh] tc rd bdkbZ dh le;&lhek ,oa@vFkok lhek lekIr u gks xbZ gksA ftu bdkb;ksa }kjk iwoZ dh izksRlkgu uhfr;ksa esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk izksRlkgu izkIr fd;k x;k gS os orZeku uhfr esa ek=k mu enksa esa izksRlkgu ds fy, ik=k gksaxh tks mUgksaus iwoZ esa izkIr ugha fd, gSaA** ¼?k½ uhfr dh dafMdk 6-1¼x½ esa fuEufyf[kr ijUrqd tksM+k tkrk gS% ^^ijUrq ,slh bdkb;k¡ ftuesa LohÑr ifj;kstuk ykxr 200 djksM+ ls vfèkd gSa ds fy, ;g le; lhek 07 o"kZ gksxhA ;g jkf'k mUgha bdkbZ;ksa dks ns; gksxh tks bl foLrkfjr vofèk esa izkIr izksRlkgu jkf'k dks bl bdkbZ esa ;k vU; bdkbZ esa iqu% fuos'k djsaxhA** 3- nks djksM+ ls de ds fuos'k izLrkoksa dh leh{kk djrs gq, mu ij fu.kZ; ysus gsrq vkS|ksfxd fodkl vk;qDr dh vè;{krk esa jkT; fuos'k izksRlkgu i"kZn~ lfpoky; dks izkfèkÑr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g fu.kZ; vij eq[; lfpo@izèkku lfpo@lfpo m|ksx foHkkx ds Lrj ij fy;s tk;saxsaA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] ¼lanhi ikS.Mjhd½ izèkku lfpo] m|ksx foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA Kkikad%& 4571 iVuk] fnukad& 14-10-2022 The State Government has issued a notification namely, Special Land and Amnesty Policy, 2020 in which, all allottees who possess individual plot have been permitted to change the activities to any activities under Policy of 2016 and sub-clause 8(ii) reads as follows:— (i) x x x x x x (ii) All allottees who possess an industrial plot/shed can change the activities to any activities identified under the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016. No permission shall be required for change of activity. The BIADA may be informed of the change of activity within one month of the change of the activity. All required fees for change of activity are waived.” 36. From the facts as enumerated above, it is an admitted position that petitioner was allotted BIADA land in the year 1967 upon which industrial activity continued till 2002 but for reasons which is not attributable to petitioner, the Unit was closed and petitioner applied firstly on 11.05.2015 for diversification / change of user to establish hospital and diagnosis centre as Unit I and shopping mall, Family Entertainment Centre, Food Court, Banquet Hall, Vehicle Service Centre as Unit II and same was rejected on 29.07.2015 in view of memo No.2170 dated 17.05.2013 which restricted diversification/change of user for establishing I.T. Park only. 37. However, it is quite intriguing that although proposal of petitioner was rejected but similar proposal for establishment / diversification / change of user was permitted by BIADA with respect to (i) UNO Digital Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Nutan Bhavya Rural Agro, (iii) Patliputra Infotech Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Guinea Motors Pvt. Ltd., (v) Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd., (vi) Alankar Auto Sales, (vii) CNS Hospital, (viii) ICAI, (xi) Bihar Trade Tower & (x) P & M Infrastructure situated at Industrial Area, Patliputra, which remains unexplained by BIADA. 38. Subsequent proposals of petitioner with respect to diversification/change of user were rejected by BIADA on the ground that same did not come within the purview of Industrial Investment Policy, 2016 and only manufacturing unit can be permitted for diversification/change of user of existing/closed units, however, subsequently, the Government has amended its policy and service sector as well as manufacturing centre are to be allotted lands of the BIADA and diversification / change of user is permissible in both manufacturing as well as service sector. 39. BIADA should focus more on industrialization of the State so that it generates more employment and revenue than to give restricted meaning to the Industrial Investment Policy, 2016. 39. BIADA should focus more on industrialization of the State so that it generates more employment and revenue than to give restricted meaning to the Industrial Investment Policy, 2016. BIADA should liberally examine the proposal for diversification /change of user of such industrial unit which were productive but have been closed as they have lost their utility or technology has become obsolete or products are not marketable or industrial units are not viable and profitable then such industrial units should be granted liberty to set up new industrial unit/diversification/change of user of their choice on their allotted land except which have been explicitly prohibited under the industrial policy in negative list. 40. It has been admitted by the BIADA in its supplementary counter affidavit as indicated above that BIADA had permitted industrial unit of similar nature as proposed by petitioner of opening of new unit as well as diversification / change of user of existing unit, then this Court does not find any reason for rejection of proposal of petitioner, as dispute is of much prior to coming of 2016 Investment Policy. From co-joint reading of Industrial policies of State Government, it appears that industries have been classified in three categories, i.e, (i) priority sector industrial units, (ii) non-priority sector industrial units and (iii) negative list industrial units. While preparing incentive policy for five years, focus/thrust is on priority sector industries and incentive is provided for establishment of new industrial unit for which BIADA land is provided as well as incentive is also provided for diversification / change in user of existing units into priority list industries. 41. The industrial policy nowhere prohibits expansion / diversification / change of user of existing units for non-priority industries and only condition is that no incentive will be provided for such expansion / diversification / change of user. The industrial policy specifically states that no incentive will be provided with respect to industries classified in negative list, however, establishment of industrial unit in negative list is also not barred but conditional only, (Annexure II- Negative list of industries under 2016 Investment Policy). 42. The industrial policy specifically states that no incentive will be provided with respect to industries classified in negative list, however, establishment of industrial unit in negative list is also not barred but conditional only, (Annexure II- Negative list of industries under 2016 Investment Policy). 42. Since the Investment Policy, 2016 has already been amended and both manufacturing sector as well as service sector have been permitted by BIADA for allotment of land for new industrial unit in priority list of industries as well as diversification / change of user for existing units, as such, at present, there appears to be no hindrance in re-considering the proposals of petitioner for diversification / change of user over the land allotted to it. The One Time Amnesty Policy, as referred above, also mandates re-consideration of such proposals afresh. 43. In view of detail discussion made above, orders dated 06.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 26.11.2020 are hereby quashed. Consequently order cancelling the lease of petitioner company is set aside and writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to submit a fresh proposal for diversification of industrial activities comprising either manufacturing or service within eight weeks and BIADA shall consider said proposal in terms of Bihar Industrial Investment Policy, 2016 as amended from time to time along with its latest policy contained in resolution dated 14.10.2022 read with Clause-8(ii) of Special land and Amnesty Policy, 2020 keeping in mind that petitioner is not claiming any financial incentive from the State Government. 44. Petitioner shall be granted personal hearing. If there are any objections raised by BIADA with respect to proposal of the petitioner, the same should be conveyed to the petitioner so that he could meet such objections and after affording reasonable opportunity, the competent authority shall take a final decision keeping in view Clause 8(ii) of Amnesty Policy, 2020. The period of one year allowed in Amnesty Policy, in view of pendency of the present writ application, shall stand extended more particularly when petitioner has submitted its proposal earlier within the stipulated period of one year. 45. The period of one year allowed in Amnesty Policy, in view of pendency of the present writ application, shall stand extended more particularly when petitioner has submitted its proposal earlier within the stipulated period of one year. 45. We hope and trust that competent authority will consider the proposal in a positive manner and shall make an endeavour to allow such proposal rather than find excuses to reject it and while taking such decision, competent authority should also bear in his mind that industrial activity is discontinued since 2002, causing loss of revenue as well as job. 46. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.