JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2007 that has been passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) requiring the petitioner to immediately stop the unauthorised constructions and submit a revised plan after removing the objections within a period of one week so that a decision can be taken failing which appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with the lease deed. Certain other consequential reliefs have also been sought. 2. A lease deed was executed on 5th January, 2006 between the petitioner and the Corporation in respect of Plot No. A-51 measuring 17874 square metres. In order to construct the building, the petitioner applied to the Corporation for sanction of building plan on 10th July, 2006. The Corporation, in response to the aforesaid application of the petitioner, sent a letter to the petitioner on 7th August, 2006 clearly mentioning the defects in the plan submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner then sent letter dated 19th August, 2006 to the Corporation in respect of the defects pointed out. The petitioner also sent some communications to the Corporation for sanctioning the plan but without waiting for any order from the Corporation regarding sanction of the plan, the petitioner started construction on the plot. The letter dated 12th January, 2007 clearly mentions that the petitioner raised the constructions without the plan having been sanctioned by the Corporation and, therefore, he should not only immediately stop the constructions but submit a revised plan within a period of one week after removing the defects so that appropriate decision can be taken failing which action in accordance with Clause 4 of the lease deed shall be taken against the petitioner. 3. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12th January, 2007 refers to two earlier letters dated 27th November, 2006 and 17th December, 2006. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply dated 17th January, 2007 in response to the letter dated 12th January, 2007 sent by the Corporation which indicates that the objections had been removed but the officials of the Corporation were harassing the petitioner and, therefore, the notice dated 12th January, 2007 was totally unwarranted. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply dated 17th January, 2007 in response to the letter dated 12th January, 2007 sent by the Corporation which indicates that the objections had been removed but the officials of the Corporation were harassing the petitioner and, therefore, the notice dated 12th January, 2007 was totally unwarranted. He also placed before us the lease deed executed between the parties and contended that action could not be taken under Clause 4 of the said lease deed. 4. Sri Siddharth Verma learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner had raised the constructions without there being any order sanctioning the plan and, therefore, the constructions raised by him were unauthorised and the Corporation was justified in asking the petitioner to stop the constructions. He further submitted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity under order dated 12th January, 2007 to submit a revised plan within a period of one week so that necessary orders could be passed but instead of doing so he has unnecessarily rushed to this Court. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. A perusal of the lease deed indicates that under sub-clauses (e) & (g) of Clause 3 of the lease deed, the lessee could make the constructions on the premises strictly in accordance with the layout plan, elevation and design to be approved in writing. In fact, no such construction could have been made without previous permission in writing. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Corporation had approved the plan submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, the constructions raised by the petitioner are wholly unauthorised. In such circumstances, the Corporation was justified in asking the petitioner to stop the constructions immediately as they were wholly unauthorised. 7. We are also surprised that in spite of availing the facility granted to the petitioner by way of submitting a revised plan after removing the defects within a period of one week, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. We are equally surprised by the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 12th January, 2007 wherein he has levelled charges of harassment to him and has also gone to the extent of alleging that a sum of Rs. 50 lacs was demanded from him towards illegal gratification. 8. We are equally surprised by the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 12th January, 2007 wherein he has levelled charges of harassment to him and has also gone to the extent of alleging that a sum of Rs. 50 lacs was demanded from him towards illegal gratification. This allegation is absolutely vague as neither does it indicate the name of the officer who demanded the same and nor does it indicate the date and place where the said amount was demanded. In the absence of any specific details, such allegations do not inspire any confidence. 9. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the notice dated 12th January, 2007. The petition is totally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———