Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Notice of motion to the respondents. On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner company has approached this Court challenging the orders dated May 31, 2005 (Annexure P.22) and order dated June 16,2006 (Annexure P.25) passed by the respondents. Through the aforesaid orders, the plot in question which was allotted to the petitioner company in the year 1980 and qua which the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1987 itself, has been ordered to be resumed. It has been pleaded by the petitioner company that after the allotment of the aforesaid plot in the year 1980,the entire payment with regard to allotment price had already been made alongwith interest before the year 1987. On receipt of the aforesaid entire payment, the conveyance deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner company in the year 1987 itself. According to the petitioner company, the requisite 25% construction in the area was also raised and industrial production qua manufacturing 20 liters jerricans had also been commenced. The aforesaid production continued till the year 1997 when the supply order from the Indian Army was no more continued. 3. The aforesaid industrial plot allotted to the petitioner company was earlier resumed vide order dated April 26,1999 but vide order dated April 10,2001,the Managing Director of the respondent corporation restored the aforesaid plot with certain conditions. As per the aforesaid conditions, the allottee was to pay all the outstanding dues to the Corporation alongwith interest for which the demand was to be raised by the Corporation. The petitioner company was also required to submit the detailed project proposal containing the schedule of implementations etc. The aforesaid project was to be implemented as per the provisions of the policy i. e. construction was to start within one year from the date of order and the implementation was to commence within three years thereafter. The petitioner company was to be bound by the further guide-lines/policy decisions of the State Government as well as the Corporation with regard to extension fee, transfer fee etc. The petitioner company was to withdraw the civil suit pending against the Corporation. The petitioner company was to be bound by the further guide-lines/policy decisions of the State Government as well as the Corporation with regard to extension fee, transfer fee etc. The petitioner company was to withdraw the civil suit pending against the Corporation. It has been pleaded by the petitioner company that since no details of any outstanding dues were ever provided by the Corporation to the petitioner company, therefore, no further action was required to be taken by the petitioner company. However, it is specifically undertaken by the petitioner company that it would clear all the outstanding dues forthwith on receipt of such demand notice from the corporation. The petitioner company maintains that within one month of passing of the order dated April 10,2001, it submitted a detailed project report to the Corporation through a forwarding letter dated May 9,2001. The aforesaid project report was submitted by the petitioner company in the name of United Software Applications and Technologies Limited, a newly incorporated company by the petitioner company through its Managing Director (the Managing director of the petitioner company also ). However, the grievance of the petitioner company is that no action has been taken by the corporation on the said project report till this date. On the other hand, a show cause notice was received by the petitioner company on may 13,2003 which was duly replied. Even though, it was the corporation who had not yet granted the necessary approval to the petitioner company with regard to the revised project report but vide order dated May 31, 2005 it withdrew the restoration order dated april 10,2001 and ordered the resumption of the plot. The appeal filed by the petitioner company was also dismissed by the Appellate authority. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner company was also dismissed by the Appellate authority. 4. Without commenting upon the various pleas raised by the petitioner company, and primarily being influenced by the fact that on an earlier occasion, the resumption order passed against the petitioner company was set aside by the Managing Director vide order dated April 10,2001 and that the petitioner company claims to have submitted a revised project report to the Corporation, and also keeping in view the fact that as per the petitioner company, no action whatsoever has been taken by the Corporation on the aforesaid revised project report, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial development Corporation Limited, respondent No.2 to consider the claim made by the petitioner company and takes such further proceedings on the revised project report submitted by the petitioner company, as may be required within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Before passing any final order, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation shall afford an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioner company. We further direct that on grant of necessary approval to the revised project submitted by the petitioner company, the resumption order passed against the petitioner company shall be treated as nonest. If any further documents/information is required by the Corporation from the petitioner company, then the Managing director of the respondent Corporation shall issue a written communication to the petitioner company in this regard and the petitioner company shall supply the necessary details as per the aforesaid requirement. 5. Till the matter is finally decided by the Managing director, the resumption order passed against the petitioner company shall remain in abeyance. Before parting with this order, we make it clear that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner company, then the petitioner company would be at liberty to seek its appropriate remedies in accordance with law.