2025:JHHC:10287 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 570 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar, S/o Bivash Chandra Singh @ B Singh, R/o LIG Flat- 8/2, Road No. 04, Near RIT Thana, PO-Adityapur, PS-RIT, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur Region, JIADA Bhawan, Adityapur, through Regional Director, JIADA, Seraikella-Kharsawan 2. Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur Region, JIADA Bhawan, Seraikella- Kharsawan … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate ----- 07/03.04.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to forthwith bifurcate and demarcate the industrial Plot No. C/49 in two parts i.e., 7,500 sq.ft. each, situated at 3rd phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, measuring an area of 15,000 sq.ft. which was originally allotted to M/s Om Industries, a partnership firm comprising of the petitioner and his father-in-law – Tajeshwar Prasad Singh (since deceased), which stood dissolved after his demise. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid plot measuring an area of 15,000 sq.ft. was allotted to M/s. Om Industries, a partnership firm comprising of the petitioner and his father-in-law – Tajeshwar Prasad Singh. Tajeshwar Prasad Singh died on 29.05.2021 as a result of which the said partnership firm automatically got dissolved. After demise of the petitioner’s father-in-law, his elder son – Shailesh Singh is continuously disturbing the petitioner in carrying out the activities in the said premises. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has 2025:JHHC:10287 2 represented the respondent no. 2 requesting inter alia to divide/bifurcate the said plot in two equal parts i.e., 7,500 sq.ft. each so that the petitioner is able to carry out his business activities peacefully in his individual capacity. Since the petitioner’s representation has not been responded by the respondent no. 2, he has been compelled to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 2, an appropriate decision will be taken by the said respondent in accordance with law within a timeframe. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 2. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 2, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the heirs/legal representatives of Late Tajeshwar Prasad Singh, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish