J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had applied for allotment of land for the purpose of small scale industry from the respondent-Government out of government Kharaba land being S. No. 261 of village Bedi of Rajkot taluka. The application of the petitioner was granted for plot No. 10 admeasuring 2000 sq. yds. ( 2 ) THE peititioner submitted plans for the purpose of construction of industry premises which he wanted to run in the name of Jyoti Plastic Industry on 24. 4. 1978. After submission of the plans by the petitioner respondent No. 1 issued the first show cause notice stating that there was breach of condition No. 3. This notice was issued on 6. 4. 1979 which was replied on 20. 4. 1979. Respondent No. 1 Collector after considering the facts and circumstances and the grounds stated in the reply had withdrawn the show cause notice. The contention of the petitioner in the reply was that he had never received the order granting plot No. 10 to him passed on 12. 6. 1968. The show cause notice alleged that condition No. 3 enumerated in the said order dated 12. 6. 1968 was not complied with. According to condition No. 3 the petitioner was obliged to submit building plans for construction of industry premises with site plan within 3 months alongwith report of the factory inspector. Respondent No. 1 Collector found in favour of the petitioner holding that the reply in response to the first show cause notice was reasonable and acceptable. Therefore the show cause notice came to be withdrawn on 31. 8. 1979. ( 3 ) AGAIN a second show cause notice was issued on 30. 11 It was contended by the petitioner by filing a reply that he raised the same contentions. He inter alia contended that he had never received a copy of the order of allotment of plot dated 12. 6. 1968; that he had never received Sanad of the plot and therefore it was not possible for him to comply with alleged condition No. 3. The contention of the petitioner was not accepted by respondent no. 1 by passing an order on 30. 1. 1982. Respondent No. 1 held that the petitioner should pay penalty of 10 paise per sq. mt. on the agricultural assessment. He calculated total amount of Rs. 8 360 Thus penalty was accordingly imposed. The contention of the petitioner was not accepted by respondent no. 1 by passing an order on 30. 1. 1982. Respondent No. 1 held that the petitioner should pay penalty of 10 paise per sq. mt. on the agricultural assessment. He calculated total amount of Rs. 8 360 Thus penalty was accordingly imposed. However instead of forfeiting the plot for non-compliance of the condition after imposing penalty two years extension was granted for the purpose of construction of industrial premises in plot no. 10 ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of respondent No. 1 the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be dismissed by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department State of Gujarat on 23. 8. 1982. Thus the impugned order of respondent No. 1 passed on 30. 1. 1982 was confirmed in revision. Therefore this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE impugned order of the Collector cannot be sustained in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing on record to show that the order of allotment in respect of plot no. 10 to the petitioner passed on 12. 6. 1968 was ever received by him mentioning the conditions. The plea of the petitioner from the beginning was that he did not know about existence of such condition. A copy of such order is also not produced on record by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. Assuming that the allotment order was received even in the case also whether if it contained condition No. 3 as alleged by the respondents is not found. Even at the time of hearing no such copy was shown to the court. Apart from that could the petitioner be directed to pay penalty or premium for the alleged breach of condition No. 3 enumerated in the allotment order in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case ? The obvious answer would be in the negative. According to the respondents the condition was that plans for construction were required to be submitted within three months alongwith lay-out plan and report of the factory inspector. The order of allotment of plot no. 10 was passed on 12. 6. 1968. Therefore according to the respondents contention the petitioner was required to comply with alleged condition no. 3 on or before 12. The order of allotment of plot no. 10 was passed on 12. 6. 1968. Therefore according to the respondents contention the petitioner was required to comply with alleged condition no. 3 on or before 12. 9 The petitioner had made application for reduction of value of land along with some other allottees on 29. 7. 1968 which came to be decided by the respondent-authorities on 12. 5. 1971. Thus admittedly the request for reduction of value of the land made within three months from the date of 12. 6 could not be decided till almost three years. The show cause notice and the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 undoubtedly go to show that the petitioner is charged or the allegation against the petitioner is that he could not fulfil or comply with condition No. 3 within three months. In fact the application given by the petitioner for reduction of value of land was not decided within three months. It was decided almost after three years. Apart from that there is nothing on record to show that the order was given to the petitioner or that Sanad was also issued to him. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances even assuming that the allotment order in respect of plot No. 10 alleged to have been issued and received by the petitioner did contain condition No. 3 then also a man who had written to the respondent-authorities for reduction of price a man who had not received possession because he had not paid the price and who had not received the Sanad could be expected to comply with condition No. 3 ? The obvious answer would be no. Considering all these facts and circumstances the first show cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 Collector on 6. 4. 1979 was rightly withdrawn on 31. 8 ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts though the jurisdictional sweep of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed there is patent illegality and apparent error amounting to miscarriage of justice and therefore this court has no option but to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) IN the result the impugned orders passed by the respondents are quashed and set aside insofar as question of imposing premium or penalty part is concerned. ( 8 ) IN the result the impugned orders passed by the respondents are quashed and set aside insofar as question of imposing premium or penalty part is concerned. The petition is therefore allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Allowed. .