Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. These Writ Appeals have been preferred by the appellants (writ petitioners) against the common order dated 29. 2000 passed in their respective Writ Petition Nos.2061 to 2064 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge upheld the action taken by the respondents-State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (for short, the SIPCOT), which cancelled the proposed order of allotment as was decided in favour of the appellants-writ petitioners. 2. As common question of law is involved and as the Writ Appeals have been preferred against the impugned common order, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. It appears that during 1988, the SIPCOT proposed to convert an area of 2.30 acres of land(s) of Southern side of the industrial complex at Hosur and divide them into commercial plots for putting up shops. The proposal was approved and the Project Officer (second respondent herein) of the SIPCOT, Hosur, was requested to call for the tenders. The advertisements were published in the newspapers--Indian Express and Dhina Thanthi dated 112. 1988 and 20.12.1988 respectively, pursuant to which, number of persons including the appellants-writ petitioners applied. The appellants being the successful bidders, by letter dated 8. 1989, the Project Officer of the SIPCOT, intimated the decision of allotment in their favour calling them to pay the cost of the plots on certain conditions. 4. According to the appellants-writ petitioners, in terms of the said decision dated 8. 1989, they have remitted 50% of the cost of the plots within the stipulated time and the rest of the 50% of the cost was also paid within the time stipulated. However, the respondents-SIPCOT, having not taken any steps to register the said plots in the name of the appellants, it was brought to the notice of the appellants-writ petitioners that the Government has rejected the usage of commercial plots in the layout for the plots allotted to them. 5. The respondents-SIPCOT brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that the Director of Town Planning in his letter dated 9. 1989, informed that the land(s) proposed can be utilised only as house-sites and not as "commercial sites". .6. In the aforesaid background, the allottees were informed on 13. 1991 that it was not possible for the SIPCOT to allot the land(s) as commercial plots. They were requested to get the money back. 1989, informed that the land(s) proposed can be utilised only as house-sites and not as "commercial sites". .6. In the aforesaid background, the allottees were informed on 13. 1991 that it was not possible for the SIPCOT to allot the land(s) as commercial plots. They were requested to get the money back. After about five years, as it appears that the respondents-SIPCOT sent a communication dated 5. 1996 that they are willing to allot the house-sites to the appellants-writ petitioners, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT and giving a consent agreeing for their revised names and cost, and the same do not mean any commitment on the part of the SIPCOT to allot the plots. 7. The Board of Directors of the SIPCOT held its meeting during October 1996, by which, it was decided to cancel the existing allotments. In view of the decision of the Director of Town Planning, the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT further decided to call for fresh applications. 8. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, the learned single Judge refused to grant the relief to the appellants-writ petitioners. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners, while highlighting the aforesaid facts, submitted that even if the plots in question could not have been allotted as commercial plots, the writ petitioners being the successful bidders, and they having deposited the total amounts, at the rate whatsoever as may be prescribed by the SIPCOT, the plots should have been allotted as residential plots in favour of the writ petitioners, pursuant to the communication of the SIPCOT dated 5. 1996. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-SIPCOT submitted that as per Condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of the tender process, if for any reason, beyond the control of the SIPCOT, the possession of the plots could not be handed over to the successful applicants, the purchaser is entitled only to refund of the amount paid by him and no interest on the deposits or installment will be paid. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their rival contentions. .12. From the records, it appears that the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT have not promised allotment of the plots in question. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their rival contentions. .12. From the records, it appears that the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT have not promised allotment of the plots in question. The plots were earlier notified for auction as commercial sites, though as per the Town Planning Department, it could have been utilized only as house-sites. Such matter having come to the notice of the SIPCOT pursuant to the letter dated 9. 1989 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, if the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT decided to cancel the proposed allotment, we find no illegality in such decision of the SIPCOT, as otherwise, the allotment of residential plots as commercial plots, could have been against the Town Planning. 13. So far as the subsequent decision of the SIPCOT, as communicated vide letter dated 5. 1996, is concerned, it will be evident that the SIPCOT has not promised to allot the plots in question to the appellants-writ petitioners as residential plots. It was specifically informed by the SIPCOT that the proposal of allotment of plots, is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT, and giving a consent agreeing for their revised norms and cost, alone does not mean any commitment on the part of the SIPCOT to allot the plots. Such a specific intimation having been given to the appellants-writ petitioners, the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT having not granted their approval, the appellants-writ petitioners cannot claim any right pursuant to the communication dated 5. 1996. Further, without any advertisements giving opportunity to all similarly situated persons to apply for the residential plots, as it was not open for the SIPCOT to allot the residential plots in favour of those who applied for commercial plots, the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT rightly decided to issue fresh advertisement calling for the applications. 14. As we find no illegality in the action taken by the respondents-SIPCOT, no interference is called for in the impugned common order dated 29. 2000 passed by the learned single Judge. 15. However, this judgment shall not stand in the way of the appellants-writ petitioners to apply for allotment of any commercial or residential plot(s) in future, pursuant to advertisement(s), if any published by the respondents-SIPCOT. 116. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. W.A.M.Ps. 2000 passed by the learned single Judge. 15. However, this judgment shall not stand in the way of the appellants-writ petitioners to apply for allotment of any commercial or residential plot(s) in future, pursuant to advertisement(s), if any published by the respondents-SIPCOT. 116. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. W.A.M.Ps. are closed.