JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Srivastava appears for U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). Shri S.F.A. Naqvi appears for Shri Sahid Anwar-respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It applied for allotment of plot in Industrial Area, Mau in the year 1991. The UPSIDC allotted Plot Nos. B-1 and B-2 to the society by its order dated 19.9.1991. The petitioner was required to pay Rs. 3,83,680/-. The petitioner paid Rs. 6,80,726.75 (with interest) from 18.8.1991 to 15.12.1995. An agreement was executed on 15.12.1995 after paying the entire amount as premium of plot No. B-1. The petitioner had earlier intimated by letter dated 27.2.1993 to UPSIDC to surrender plot No. B-2. 3. The petitioner was given possession of Plot No. B-1 on 8.1.1996 and was required to pay Rs. 320/- per month as lease rent. On 28.1.2000 the petitioner received a letter from UPSIDC, referring to the notice dated 18.8.1999 and requesting the petitioner to commence and complete the constructions of the factory building within 30 days. The Corporation informed the petitioner that since inspite of notice, the petitioner did not take any action to commence/complete the constructions and committed breach of the conditions laid down in Clause 4 (e) of the licence agreement dated 15.12.1995, the allotment of plot is cancelled and the agreement is revoked with all consequences including forfeiture of deposit in accordance with Clause (5) of the said agreement and that the possession has been taken back. 4. By an interim order dated 28.3.2000 the Court while issuing notice directed status quo with regard to possession, character and nature of disputed plot No. B-1 and B-2, Industrial Area Mau to be maintained. 5. There is no dispute with regard to allotment of Plot No. B-2 as it was surrendered by the petitioner on 27.2.1993. With regard to cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of deposits of plot No. B-1, the order has been challenged on the grounds: (1) according to Clause 4 (e) read with Clause 5 of the agreement dated 15.12.1995, the petitioner was to complete construction within 24 months from the date of execution of the licence. With regard to cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of deposits of plot No. B-1, the order has been challenged on the grounds: (1) according to Clause 4 (e) read with Clause 5 of the agreement dated 15.12.1995, the petitioner was to complete construction within 24 months from the date of execution of the licence. The period was too short to arrange the finance, means and material and thus Clause 4 (e) and the order dated 28.1.2000 is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India; (2) The petitioner has spent Rs. 7 lacs on acquiring the plot and thus it was unreasonable for the Corporation to expect the society to construct the building within two years; (3) In the matter of Smt. Mahjabin and Shri Uma Shankar Yadav, the allottees of UPSIDC the time limit was extended. The petitioner has been discriminated in depriving him a similar opportunity. 6. Shri Sanjeev Singh submits that in this case time was not the essence of the contract. The time could be extended by the Corporation on the request of the licensee. No notice was given to the petitioner. The recital in the order that the notice was sent on 18.8.1999, is incorrect as no such notice was served upon the petitioner. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition the plot was allotted to respondent No. 6. It is alleged that the allotment within 6 days of the cancellation without advertisement in newspapers or inviting any tender or offer is sham and illegal. The petitioner paid Rs. 109 per sq. mtr., whereas the plot has been allotted to respondent No. 6 at the rate of Rs. 62.50 per sq. mtr. after 9 years, when the prevalent rate of premium in the area is Rs. 1700/- per sq. mtr. 8. In the counter-affidavit of Shri Sahid Anwar-respondent No. 6, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Mau being Original Suit No. 59 of 2000 in which it filed an application for temporary injunction for the same relief as it has claimed in this writ petition. The application was rejected on 29.2.2000, after which the petitioner moved an application for withdrawing the suit on 16.3.2000. The suit was withdrawn without any permission to take the cause in any other Court. The application was rejected on 29.2.2000, after which the petitioner moved an application for withdrawing the suit on 16.3.2000. The suit was withdrawn without any permission to take the cause in any other Court. The filing of the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India after withdrawing the suit, in which the petitioner did not get injunction is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had voluntarily entered into agreement and had agreed to complete the constructions within 24 months or such extended time as may be allowed. The petitioner did not request for any extension of time. The plot was allotted to respondent No. 6 for construction of school for which the respondent No. 6 has requested for affiliation/recognition from the Central Board of Secondary Education. The possession was given to respondent No. 6 and that Rs. 3 lac was spent on construction. The project has been held up due to the orders passed by this Court. 9. In the counter-affidavit of Shri B.K. Singh, OSD, UPSIDC, Allahabad, it is stated that the petitioner filed a suit against UPSIDC and respondent No. 6 in which the injunction application was rejected on 29.2.2000 after which the petitioner withdrew the suit on 16.3.2000. The registration period of the petitioner expired on 28.6.1996. There is no recital in the writ petition that the registration of the society was renewed. Before cancelling the agreement a utilisation notice was sent to the petitioner on 18.8.1999, which was duly acknowledged and that in terms of the agreement dated 15.12.1995 the allotment was cancelled on 28.1.2000. Smt. Mahjabeen and Shri Uma Shankar Yadav were not given extensions for construction. They had requested for allowing them more time to pay the premium, which was allowed and thus the Corporation has not caused any discrimination. 10. The UPSIDC has been incorporated as State Government Corporation for industrial development in the State. The land is acquired by the State for the Corporation for development and allotment to the deserving applicants for setting up small and medium scale industries. The petitioner applied to set up an industry for manufacturing Khadi clothes and Gramodyog material. 10. The UPSIDC has been incorporated as State Government Corporation for industrial development in the State. The land is acquired by the State for the Corporation for development and allotment to the deserving applicants for setting up small and medium scale industries. The petitioner applied to set up an industry for manufacturing Khadi clothes and Gramodyog material. Under Clause 4 (e) of the agreement dated 15th December, 1995 the petitioner was required to raise constructions within 24 months or such extended time as may be allowed by the granter in writing in its discretion, or the request of the licensee. Clause 5 of the agreement provided that if the licensee fails to commence and complete the building or fails to pay the installments of the premium, the granter shall have the right to re-enter upon the land and resume possession and to do everything thereon without prejudice to all other rights and remedies of the granter. A further right is reserved in Clause-5 to recover the cost for removing or altering building or constructions and that an amount equal to 20% of the total premium together with outstanding next due till date the use and occupation and other dues shall stand forfeited, the granter and the licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation. 11. The agreement was executed between UPSIDC and the petitioner on 15th December, 1995, after payment of the entire premium amount. The petitioner society was given possession of the land on 8.1.1996, but the society did not submit building plan for approval and made no efforts to start constructions and to run the industry. The petitioner also did not apply for extending the time beyond 24 months for raising constructions. In paragraph 21 and 22 of the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner society that the period for raising constructions was too short and unreasonable. After spending Rs. 7 lacs on the premium of the land it was not conceivable for the petitioner to have arranged for further sum within short time to set up the industry. 12. In the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner stated that industrial area at Mau has not developed so far. The petitioner had requested the Bombay head office for sanction of finances for raising construction. The sanction is still awaited. 13. 12. In the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner stated that industrial area at Mau has not developed so far. The petitioner had requested the Bombay head office for sanction of finances for raising construction. The sanction is still awaited. 13. Shri Sanjiv Singh submits that in this case time was not the essence of the contract. The Corporation did not give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise constructions. It was not open to the Corporation to have illegally and arbitrarily cancelled the allotment and forfeiting the entire amount of premium. Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable to commercial transactions. If the petitioner did not perform his part of contract, the contract become voidable at the option of the promisee and that the Corporation was required to bring a suit for eviction. The cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of premium and resumption of plot was beyond the authority of the Corporation. 14. In the standard form agreement dated 15th December, 1995 entered into between the Corporation and the petitioner-society, the petitioner-society agreed to take the plot on licence from the Corporation as a granter. The entire premium was paid and that in terms of the object for which the Corporation is established, the petitioner as licensee agreed to raise constructions on the plot of land, at his own cost in accordance with lay out plan, and design as may be approved by the granter and the municipal or other authority, in writing, a building to be used as industrial-factory with all necessary out houses and other appurtenances and buildings completely finished and fit to use, to start manufacture within 24 months from the date, or within such extended time as was to be allowed by the granter in writing in its discretion or the request of the licensee. 15. The building was to be completed within two years i.e. by 14th December, 1997. The Corporation waited for three more years. The Clause 4 (e) of the agreement provided that the grantee was required to raise constructions within 24 months, or such extended time, as may be allowed by the granter in writing in its discretion, on the request of the licensee. In this case the petitioner did not make any request nor the Corporation granted time to it in writing. The Clause 4 (e) of the agreement provided that the grantee was required to raise constructions within 24 months, or such extended time, as may be allowed by the granter in writing in its discretion, on the request of the licensee. In this case the petitioner did not make any request nor the Corporation granted time to it in writing. It cannot therefore be said that the delay in giving notice will be treated as time extended by the Corporation for raising constructions. The petitioner did not apply either before or after the period expired or even after receiving the notice, for construction of an industrial facility. The licence agreement was thus cancelled, with its consequence in para 5, of the agreed terms between the parties. 16. The time was not the essence of the contract as it could be extended on the request of the licensee, and on the option of the granter. The Corporation did not give notice for almost three years after the time expired. The petitioner failed to use the opportunity and did not even submit a building plan for constructions. It is now fairly admitted to the petitioner-society that it does not have funds and that till date the head office has not sanctioned the funds for raising constructions. 17. The object of UPSIDC is to make land and other facilities available for industrial development. The conditions in the licence for raising industrial facility within 24 months of the agreement or within such extended time as the granter may allow or on the request of the licensee, is a reasonable term under the standard form agreement. Having entered into the agreement with open eyes and failing to comply with the terms, the petitioner cannot be allowed to complain of cancellation of the plot. The order of cancellation, by way of resumption of the licences premises, does not suffer from any error of law. 18. Clause 5 of the agreement provides for forfeiture of 20% of the total premium. The petitioner, however, has not made any such prayer in the writ petition nor has made any request in the course of argument to return the remaining amount forfeited and the 20% of the total amount of premium paid. 18. Clause 5 of the agreement provides for forfeiture of 20% of the total premium. The petitioner, however, has not made any such prayer in the writ petition nor has made any request in the course of argument to return the remaining amount forfeited and the 20% of the total amount of premium paid. The petitioner has enjoyed the interim order for both the plots, after his injunction application was rejected and did not care to clarify to the Court that he had surrendered plot No. B-2. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no direction is required to be given to refund the premium. 19. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with another submission raised by the petitioner that the plot was allotted at higher price than the price offered to respondent No. 6. The demand of the land in industrial area, Mau has not picked up and appears to have fallen for reasons, which are best known to the Corporation and that in any case the allotment for school had to be made on different considerations. The writ petition is dismissed. ————