(1.) I.A.No. 6160 of 2005 has been filed by the M/s Amrapali Automobiles through one of its partners for being impleaded as party respondent to the instant case.
(2.) CONSIDERING the averments made in this application and the facts and circumstances, the applicant has only applied before the authorities concerned for the area in question to be allotted to it and hence it cannot at this stage claim any right over the same. Furthermore since this case is very seriously contested by the respondents, I do not see any necessity to add the said intervenor as respondent in the instant case and accordingly the above interlocutory application is dismissed.
(3.) SO far the question of notice is concerned, it is specific claim of the respondents that the notices were sent to the petitioners, which fact is denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners but the fact remains that after the impugned order of the Executive Director dated 22.9.2004 (Annexure-1) the petitioners availed opportunity of challenging the same before the appellate forum and after considering the facts and circumstances and even after giving opportunities to the petitioners to give a proposal to re-start the industry after re-allotment the petitioners did not come with any concurrent proposal, which clearly proves that neither any industry was established nor the petitioners were agreed to give a proposal for re-starting the industry. In this connection it may be stated here that the petitioners have filed a petition before the authorities concerned for diversification of the available land for starting his petrol pump etc. and whereas some other persons also filed applications for the same purpose but Industrial Area of the Patliputra Industrial Estate has been developed in view of the specific industrial policy and before allowing such an application of any person, the authorities will have to see as to whether such an application could be legally allowed in the specific requirements and terms of the industrial policy.