M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17-8-1996 Annexure 18 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to hand over possession of the plots in question to the purchasers subject to de-attaching the property by the Honble Supreme Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act its object was to set up Electronic City/technology Park projects in India as well as abroad. The details are stated in para 3 of the writ petition. As stated in paras 4 to 8 of the writ petition the promoters of the petitioner company had discussed the matter with the Government authorities and submitted their proposal and it is alleged in para 8 of the petition that the Government of India, Department of Electronic has recommended the project for its establishment in the State of Haryana and U. P. by letter dated 25-3- 1985. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that the Principal Secretary and the Secretary, Electronics, Government of U. P. also addressed a Press Conference in Delhi and announced the approval of the Project as the Government wanted establishment of the project in Uttar Pradesh instead of Haryana vide Annexure-2. In para 12 of the petition it is alleged that the Industries Department, Government of U. P. also approved the Project by letter dated 29-7-1985 and the U. P. Government agreed to grant 200 acres land for this purpose. The petitioner started negotiations with the tenure-holders of the land in Village Tusiyana for purchasing the land in village Tusiyana, Block Bisrakh, District Ghaziabad. For purchasing the land the District Magistrate vide letter dated 11-12-1985 granted no objection certificate and the U. P. Government approved the proposal vide order 18-12-1985 vide Annexures-5 and 6. An order dated 19-7-1986 was passed under Section 154 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for using the land for Electronic City/technology Park vide Annexure-7. It is alleged in para 16 that the petitioner had invested rupees three crores for this purpose. In para 17 it is stated that the company had entered into agreements with the intending purchasers for providing facilities and thus made a commitment/investment/liability of Rs. 15 crores for this purpose. It is alleged in para 16 that the petitioner had invested rupees three crores for this purpose. In para 17 it is stated that the company had entered into agreements with the intending purchasers for providing facilities and thus made a commitment/investment/liability of Rs. 15 crores for this purpose. The company also received permission from district authorities to construct industrial/residential buildings on the land vide Annexure-8. However, the petitioner company received notice dated 21-11-1988 from the Under Secretary, Industries Department calling upon it to show cause as to why the earlier permission granted on 19-7-1986 may not be cancelled. True copy of the show cause notice is Annexure-9. The petitioner gave reply on 5-12-1988 vide Annexure-10. However, the Under Secretary without giving opportunity of personal hearing cancelled the permission granted earlier by order dated 20-4-1989 vide Annexure-11. 4. In para 22 it is alleged that the petitioner had received payment in part from the intending purchasers and had invested that amount in developing and establishing the Electronic City/technology Park. On account of the cancellation of the Plan these persons would claim refund of their amounts which the Company has already invested in bringing up the Project. Hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9570 of 1989 in this Court against the order dated 20-4-1989 which was disposed off by judgment dated 9-12-1991 Annexure 12. In that decision it was observed that since the petitioner has been allowed to develop the Electronic City/technology Park the respondents would strictly comply with the decision, which had been given by the Monitoring Committee and would permit the petitioner to develop the electronic city in accordance with that decision. Consequent to the said order a compromise deed was entered into vide Annexure-13. 5. Thereafter the respondents asked the petitioner to submit the lay out plan which was submitted by the petitioner on 23-2-1995 vide Annexure-15. The respondent asked the petitioner to submit title deed regarding the land purchased and the petitioner submitted the same with letter dated 4-3-1995 vide Annexure-16. The respondents still did not feel satisfied with the papers filed by the petitioner and hence the petitioner requested for a personal meeting so that the matter may be discussed. However as stated in para 29 of the petition instead of giving personal interview the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17-8-1996 cancelled the compromise deed. The respondents still did not feel satisfied with the papers filed by the petitioner and hence the petitioner requested for a personal meeting so that the matter may be discussed. However as stated in para 29 of the petition instead of giving personal interview the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17-8-1996 cancelled the compromise deed. True copy of the letter dated 13-8-1996 is Annexure- 17 and true copy of the order impugned is Annexure-18. 6. In para 31 of the writ petition, it is stated that at that stage the order dated 17-8-1996 was not challenged for the reason that before that the petitioner company was attached by order of the Supreme Court in Misc. Case No. 21000 of 1993 vide Annexure-19 to the petition. The Supreme Court appointed a commission to submit a report dated 5-9-2001 vide Annexure-20. A contempt petition was filed before the Supreme Court in which the petitioner submitted a scheme of settlement vide Annexure 21. On 20-3-2002 when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner should go to the appropriate forum for appropriate relief by order dated 20-3-2002 vide Annexure 22. In para 35 it is stated that the order dated 17-8-1996 cancelling the compromise was not challenged earlier because the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court and the Company was attached by order of the Supreme Court. Now Supreme Court has given liberty to it to move the appropriate forum, and hence, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-8-1996. In para 36 of the petition it is stated that merely because sub divisions plan was not filed, on that basis the compromise deed could not be cancelled, and too without giving personal hearing. In para 37 it is stated that the compromise was executed in accordance with order of the High Court dated 9-12-1999 and hence permission could have been taken from the High Court before cancelling the compromise deed. In para 38 it is stated that the interest of several persons who had purchased the land in dispute is involved and the petitioner is prepared to hand over possession to those who have deposited the purchase money. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In para 38 it is stated that the interest of several persons who had purchased the land in dispute is involved and the petitioner is prepared to hand over possession to those who have deposited the purchase money. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In para 3 it is stated that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 9-1-1992 has automatically been cancelled on the ground that necessary papers required to be filed by the petitioner had not been submitted on or before 16-8-1996. In para 4 it is stated that the respondent authority by his letter dated 25-7-1996 directed the petitioner company to furnish ownership/title papers of the land alongwith Shajara Map/detailed map lay out plan etc. so that the plan may be considered by the authority in accordance with the regulation. However inspite of the said letter the enquiry papers demanded by the petitioner company were not submitted and hence the impugned order dated 17- 8-1996 was passed. The petitioner filed this writ petition after more than five years and no proper reason has been assigned for the delay. In para 16 it is stated that the conditional approval of land use clearance of the project was given to the petitioner by State Government vide order dated 29-7-1985 subject to the condition that the petitioner will submit a detailed map (Shajra) to the State Government. In para 20 it is stated that the petitioner company had invested money at its own risk and the respondents are not responsible for the same. 8. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner. In para 4 of the same it is stated that the lay out of the plot was submitted on 23-2-1995 and the title deed vide letter dated 4- 3-1995. In para 5 it is stated that after receipt of letter dated 25-7-1996, the petitioner sent letter dated 1-3-1996 requesting Respondent No. 1 that he may be given inspite of the lay out plan and title deed having been submitted. It is stated that the respondents have acted in haste in cancelling the compromise. 9. From the facts of the case it appears that the respondents cancelled the compromise on the ground that there were some defects in the lay out plan and title deed without affording the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing. It is stated that the respondents have acted in haste in cancelling the compromise. 9. From the facts of the case it appears that the respondents cancelled the compromise on the ground that there were some defects in the lay out plan and title deed without affording the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing. No doubt rules of natural justice are flexible and not a straight jacket formula, and personal hearing is not necessary in every case. Its depends on the facts of each case whether personal hearing should be given or not. In the present case since the petitioner had invested huge amount and compromise had been entered into between the parties, in our opinion personal hearing should have been given to the petitioner before cancelling the compromise. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily in the matter as arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SC 597. In the present case the respondents have acted arbitrarily in the matter, as they have not considered the matter carefully and have not given personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted the title deed of the land and the lay out plan and it seems to us that in hot haste the compromise has been cancelled by order dated 17-8- 1996, Annexure-18 to the writ petition. The petition is therefore, allowed and the order dated 17-8- 1996 is quashed. 10. The respondents shall now consider the matter afresh after giving personal hearing the petitioners representative and act in accordance with law. As regard the delay in filling the writ petition the same has been adequately explained in para 35 of the writ petition. Petition allowed. .