- (1.) Heard.
(2.) This interlocutory application for the amendment of the petition will form part of the main petition. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for AIADA submitted that if AIADA has not appeared before D.R.T. II, Mumbai in the case instituted by the Dena Bank against predecessor in interest of the petitioner, AIADA will appear and cooperate in early disposal of the proceeding. AIADA is directed to do so.
(3.) He further submitted that in view of the disputed facts involved, the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal against the order dated 10.5.2006 (annexure 3) cancelling the allotment made in the favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner under Section 6 (2) (a) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 before the Secretary of the department of Industries. On this Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner is not required to file appeal in view of the fact that he purchased the land in sale by respondent no. 5, however, he will advise his client to file appeal, but the delay may be condoned and status quo as on today should be maintained till orders on interim prayer is passed by the appellate authority.;