JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records and quashing the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure—1 to the writ petition) (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure—2 to the writ petition). (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of PROHIBITION restraining the respondents from allotting the plot No. D-26 at Export Promotion Industrial Park to any other third person. iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to hand over physical possession of the plot No. D-26 to the petitioner at Export Promotion Industrial Part as well as to permit the petitioner to set up its software unit within a period of one year. v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent No. 2 to execute a lease deed in respect of the plot No. 26 of the petitioner. vi) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. vii) to award costs to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as follows: 3.1 The respondent No. 2, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. UPSIDC Complex, A-1/4, Lakhanpur, Kanpur is a State instrumentality for promotion of industrial development in the State and respondent No. 3 and 4 are its officers. 3.2 The respondent No. 2 has brought a scheme for the development of Export Promotion Industrial Park at Greater Noida. 3.3 In response to the advertisement published in this regard, the petitioner had applied for plot. He was allotted 1000 sq. Meter of land for setting up an industrial unit and accordingly allotment order dated 26.11.1996 (Annexure 3) has been issued. 3.4 According to terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 26.11.1996, the petitioner has paid entire value of the plot alongwith interest (a sum of Rs. He was allotted 1000 sq. Meter of land for setting up an industrial unit and accordingly allotment order dated 26.11.1996 (Annexure 3) has been issued. 3.4 According to terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 26.11.1996, the petitioner has paid entire value of the plot alongwith interest (a sum of Rs. 13,58,899.95) as per details given in Annexure 9. 3.5 On the request of the petitioner, his original plot No. D-116 has been changed to plot No. D-26. Subsequent to that due to change of circumstances, respondent has changed Plot No. D-26 from Plot No. D-122, on further request of the petitioner, Plot No. D-122 was again changed to Plot No. D-26. 3.6 The petitioner has obtained permission of Tele-Communications Department to set up an International Call Centre (Annexure-17) valid up to 20 years. 3.7 vide order dated 27.1.2005 (Annexure-2), the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the allotment of plot No. D-26 allotted to the petitioner. 3.8 The petitioner requested for review of the above order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the respondents through letter dated 31.1.2005 (Annexure-10). He has also sent a reminder letter dated 10.2.2005 (Annexure-11) in the above request. 3.9 The petitioner has submitted necessary documents required from him vide letter dated 11.3.2005 (Annexure-14) alongwith undertaking to the effect that he will take possession of D-26 EPIP Greate Noida Kasna within three month and start making building within six months and start Factory and export within one year after the date of re-allotment of plot to him. He has also given undertaking that if he is not able to fulfil the above said condition then in that condition Corporation will be free to cancel my plot No. D-26 allotted to me and in that condition he will not context his claim in any Court. 3.10 By impugned orders dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure 1) the petitioner was informed about rejection of his application for re-allotment of Plot No. D-26. 3.11 Feeling aggrieved by the above orders dated 28.4.2005 and 27.1.2005, the petitioner has filed present writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated 20.2.2008. 3.12 Against the said order dated 20.2.2004, Civil Appeal No. 1205 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20015 of 2008, has been filed by the respondents, which has been disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 1.2.2010, which is reproduced herein below : “Leave granted. 3.12 Against the said order dated 20.2.2004, Civil Appeal No. 1205 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20015 of 2008, has been filed by the respondents, which has been disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 1.2.2010, which is reproduced herein below : “Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, the High Court should have, after considering the pleadings of the parties and arguments of their respective counsel decided the issue relating to legality of the action taken by the appellants for cancellation of alternative plot i.e., Plot No. D-26 allotted to the respondents and ought not to have dispose of the writ petition filed by the respondents on the basis of statement made by the parties and the affidavit of Shri V.K. Singh, Assistant Manager (Law). For the reason stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court with the request that the writ petition filed by the respondents be decided afresh as early as possible but latest before the end of year 2010. Till the hearing of the matter by the High Court, Plot No. D-26 shall not be allotted to any other persons.” 4. Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that: 4.1 The order of cancellation dated 27.1.2005 is bad in the eyes of law as neither any show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner nor opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner. The reasons assigned by the respondents in the order dated 27.1.2005 were non existent on that very date and dehors the letter of allotment dated 26.11.1996.. 4.2 The order dated 28.4.2005 has also been passed without any notice and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Despite compliance of each and every direction given by the respondents from time to time, no reason has been assigned for rejection of the application of the petitioner for re-allotment. No any order for rejection of application of petitioner for re-allotment has been tagged or supplied to the petitioner, which is itself indicative of the whimsical, arbitrary and authoritative working of the respondents as such impugned orders dated 28.4.2005 and 27.1.2005 are bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law due to being passed without any notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing to the State of U.P. and Sri Ashish Jaiswal learned counsel appearing on behalf respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that orders dated 28.042005 and 27.1.2005 have been passed due to failure of the petitioner to respond the various notices sent to him by the respondents. Petitioner has also failed to make payments and has not taken any steps for the execution of a lease deed. Petitioner has also not fulfilled his promises committed in his letter dated 24.1.2004 and 16.7.2004 which were written before the allotment of plot No. D-26 to the petitioner. He has also not supplied necessary details and documents for disposal of application for re-allotment of plot D-26. As such, cancellation of the allotment of the plot allotted to the petitioner and rejection of application of the petitioner for re-allotment of the plot No. D-26 to the petitioner are fully justified. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of non existent grounds and by making wrong averments about them in the counter-affidavit and supplementary-affidavit which are not permissible in the law. Execution of lease deed was depend on certain happenings which was not possible due to non-delivery of actual possession of plot No. D-26 to the petitioner by the respondents. The respondents have acted in arbitrary manner and created a situation which was beyond the control of the petitioner. The alleged show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004 has not been brought on record by the respondent to show that above notice was in respect of cancellation of the plot. Respondent has not communicated any reason for rejection of his application for re-allotment in the meeting of allotment committee on 28.2.2005 and 10.4.2005. Impugned orders dated 28.4.2005 and 27.1.2005 suffer from grave error of law apparent on the face of the record, the respondents acted dehors the provision of letter of allotment and have illegally cancelled the allotment of the petitioner ignoring the fact that the petitioner has already paid the entire cost of the land in the year 2002 alongwith interest charges and the respondents had not delivered the physical possession of the land to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the following decisions: (i) Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2008, M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others v. M/s. Hari Om Enterprises and another. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the following decisions: (i) Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2008, M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others v. M/s. Hari Om Enterprises and another. (ii) Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2004 (2) SCC 130 . (iii) Narayan Creation v. State of Uttrakhand and others in W. P. (M/s) 208 of 2010 decided on 3.1.2012. (iv) M/s. Falcon Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and others in W.P. No. 1008 of 2008 decided on 23.3.2010. (v) M/s. Uttaranchal Packaging Pvt. Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand and others in W.P. (M/S) 443 of 2008 decided on April 21, 2010. (vi) M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and three others in W.P. (M/S) 735 of 2008 decided on July 28, 2010. vii) M/s. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and others in W.P. 2483 of 2007 decided on 18.12.2008. viii) M/s. Qualicare Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and others in W.P. 1884 of 2007 (M/S) decided on November 30, 2010. ix) Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, AIR 1990 SC 1031 . x) Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, 2011 (5) SCC 697 . xi) Harbans Lal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others, 2003 (2) SCC 107 . xii) Jagmohan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (7) SCC 38 . xiii) M/s. Anil Service Station, Azamgarh and another v. Union of India and others, 2009 (7) ADJ 347 . xiv) M/s. Navin Filling Station, Nawabganj, Bareilly v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and others, 2008 (6) ADJ 319 . 8. We have considered the rival arguments of the parties and have gone through the record. 9. In the aforesaid factual and legal background of this writ petition, we have to examine the validity and legality of the orders dated 28.4.2005 and 27.1.2005. 10. Prior to proceed further, it will be helpful to give a careful look to the relevant portion of allotment letter dated 26.11.1996 and to the impugned orders dated 27.1.2005 and 28.4.2005, which are reproduced herein below: (Allotment of Plot (Annexure 3) “U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Head Office: A-/4, LAKHANPUR, Kanpur-2008 024 Division Office : Greater Noida Export Promotion Industrial Part J-10, Sector 12, NOIDA, Distt. Ghaziabad. U.P. Ref. No. 116 /SIDC/GNEPIP-131 (96) Plot /FLATT. FACT. Ghaziabad. U.P. Ref. No. 116 /SIDC/GNEPIP-131 (96) Plot /FLATT. FACT. No. D-6 Dated:26.11.96 Mr. Praveen Kumar Grover F-212, Mansrover Garden New Delhi-110015 Sub : Allotment of Plot in CNEPIP, Kasna Dear Sir/Madam With reference to your application dated 27.8.1996 for allotment of plot in our GNEOPIP at Kasna, we have allotted to you plot No. D-116. In our Greater Noida Export Promotion Indu, Park at Kasna, Distt. Bulandshaher on the conditions noted below for setting up an Industrial Unit to manufacture COMPUTER & PERIPHERALS. 1. As per layout plan of GNEPIP, the area of plot is 1000.00 Sq. Mtr.. However precise measurement shall be made by this office and the exact area of the land in the plot shall be computed and intimated to you on the basis of which balance premium and other dues, if any, shall be payable by you on demand. 2. The date of this letter will be treated as the date of allotment of the above plot in your favour. 3. The interest chargeable as per clause 5 below on the (total) balance outstanding premium will be computed from the date of allotment as defined in clause 2 above and payable half yearly on 1st day of January and 1st day of July each year. The first of such payments will be due on 1st July 1977. (a) There are constructions of Value of Rs. 0.00 existing on the plot, cost of which shall have to be paid by you along-with reservation money as mentioned in clause 4 below. 4. You shall deposit at this office an amount of Rs. 1, 50, 000.00 (Registration/Earnest Money of Rs. 25,000.00 has been adjusted) towards reservation money in respect of the above plot latest by 26/12/96. This amount (together with Registration/Earnest Money) is approximately equal to 25% of the total premium of the plot at the provisional rate of Rs. 700.00 per Sq. mt. and locational and or Corner charges @ Rs. 0.00Sq. Mtr. for first five acres and is subject to adjustment according to actual measurement of the plot. If the above amount falls short of the amount equal to 25% of the total premium according to actual measurement, the balance will be deposited by you within seven days of the receipt of the demand from us. If payments are not made as stipulated above this allotment will stand automatically cancelled/and Rs. 2000/- per 1000 Sq. Mtr. If the above amount falls short of the amount equal to 25% of the total premium according to actual measurement, the balance will be deposited by you within seven days of the receipt of the demand from us. If payments are not made as stipulated above this allotment will stand automatically cancelled/and Rs. 2000/- per 1000 Sq. Mtr. or part there of out of amount of Registration fee deposited by you will stand forfeited to this Corporation, even if the area of the plot either exceeds or is less than the area applied for to the extent of 20% or less of the area applied for. However, if the area of the land allotted either exceeds the area applied for or falls short of the area applied for by an area more then 20% of it, the Earnest money will not be forfeited if this allotment is not accepted; provided an intimation is sent to us in this respect by the date stipulated(stipulated) above. Note : The premium mentioned herein is provisional and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with the provisions of Licence Agreement/lease Deed. 5. The remaining 75% of the provisional premium shall have to be paid by you in ten equal half yearly instalments each of which will be due for payment on 1st day of January and 1st day July each year. The first instalment of such payment will fall due for payment on 1.7.97. The second and subsequent instalments of premium will fall due on 1st day of January and 1st day of July each year. An interest 18% per annum shall be charged on the outstanding (balance) premium with effect from the date of allotment and will be payable alongwith instalment of premium as stipulated in clause 3 above subject to a rebate of 2% per annum on payment on or before the prescribed date and if there are no arrears of dues. The amount of the balance premium and the interest due on if from time to time shall remain first charge on the land and the building and machinery erected thereon it is (they are) paid in full. 6. The stamp duty, the registration charges and legal expenses involved in the execution of the Lease Deed and other agreements from time to time will have to be borne by you. 7. 6. The stamp duty, the registration charges and legal expenses involved in the execution of the Lease Deed and other agreements from time to time will have to be borne by you. 7. In the event of cancellation of allotment on account of any default on your part, the following amounts will stand forfeited to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (a) Interest @ 18% per annum from the date of allotment on the total unpaid premium from time to time till the date of cancellation of allotment without allowing rebate in interest, mentioned in clause 5 above irrespective of the fact whether the dues had been paid in time or not. AND (b) Use and Occupation charges/Lease Rent from the date of allotment upto the date of cancellation. AND (C) In the case of constructed Flatted Factory allotted by UPSIDC Ltd., 5% of the cost of Flatted Factory towards deprecation. The balance amount, if any, out of the deposits made by you till then, after deducting the amounts to be forfeited as above, will be refundable. In case the total of the amount paid is less then the amounts to be forfeited you shall be liable to pay the difference and the same shall be recoverable by the Corporation from you. 8. ..(d) Service Charges/water supply/Sewerage charges from the date of allotment till the date of surrender; The balance amount, if any, out of the deposits made by you till the date of surrender after deducting the amounts to be forfeited as above, will be refundable. In case the total of the amount paid is less then the amounts to be forfeited you shall be liable to pay the difference and the same shall be recoverable by the Corporation from you’. 13. You will have to take over possession of the land executing the Licence Agreement within 30 days from the date of inviting you to do so or within three months from the date of this letter whichever is earlier. 14. The Lease Deed for the plot (s) will be executed only when: (a) The factory has been established and commercial production has been commenced to the satisfaction of this Corporation. 14. The Lease Deed for the plot (s) will be executed only when: (a) The factory has been established and commercial production has been commenced to the satisfaction of this Corporation. (b) The loan has been sanctioned for the project for which this allotment is being made by the financial institution (requiring creation of mortgage) and the same has assured, in writing, to UPSIDC LTD., for making the lump-sum payment of total balance premium of land out of the first disbursement of the sanctioned loan on behalf of the allottee. In the event, we may be able to allow first charge to such institution and transfer to it the original Lease Deed in exchange for registered duplicate copy thereof. 15. the allotment will be cancelled if and when there happens any of the events mentioned below and the same consequences will follow as stated in clause 7 above : (a) If you fail to execute Licence Agreement/lease Deed and/or take possession of the land as mentioned in clause Nos. 11 and 13 within the time stipulated in clause 13, the time being of essence. (b) If you fail to make payment of Service/Sewerage/Water Supply, interest and/or premium on or before the due date (5) as mentioned in clause 5 of this letter. 18. You will pay service charges 920/-Sq. Mtr. Per annum (special) rates for the first set of allottees) for plots which will become due on the first day of every year starting from the date of allotments. Also charges for water supply/Sewerage disposal shall be payable extra as will be intimated later on. The Corporation reserves the right for a prorata (prorate) increase in service charges/water supply and sewerage disposal charges based on the whole-sale price index prevailing in the previous year. Service charges @ Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. per rear is only for the allottees of the first phase who have been offered special price. This facility shall be available to them for the one year only. After the expiry of one year the allottees shall have to pay the service charges at the prevalent rates. 23. You will utilize minimum 30% area of the plot by covering it by roof/permanent shed within the specified period as contained in the Licence Agreement/Lease Deed, failing which the allotment of the plot (s) will be cancelled. 25. After the expiry of one year the allottees shall have to pay the service charges at the prevalent rates. 23. You will utilize minimum 30% area of the plot by covering it by roof/permanent shed within the specified period as contained in the Licence Agreement/Lease Deed, failing which the allotment of the plot (s) will be cancelled. 25. The payments made by you shall be first adjusted towards the service charges, and water supply and sewerage charges, then towards the premium due, if any. The balance, if any, towards use and occupation charges/lease rent. 26.You shall export the produce of the allotted plot/built up space to the tune of minimum 33% of total production in value terms from the date of commencement of commercial production and in case you fail to export the produce, minimum 33 % of total production in value terms, the Corpn. (UPSIDC) will be at liberty to takeover the demised premises with all assets therein (Land, Building, Machineries etc.) and cancel the allotment of plot without prejudice to all other rights of the Corporation for which you shall submit an affidavit on prescribed form duty notorised. Sd/-illegible Your faithfully For U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Executive Director" ************* Order dated 27.1.2005(Anexure No. 2) “U.P. State Industrial Greater Noida Export Promotion Industrial Park Development Corporation Ltd. Surajpur-V, Lasna. Greater Noida. Shri Praveen Kumar Grover Distt.: Gauttam Buddha Nagar- 201306 F-212, Mansrover Garden Telefax: 0120- 2341880, 2341526 New Delhi-110015 Email: Gnepip @ de 12.vsnl.net.in Registered Reference No. 1704 /SIDC/ Dated: 24.1.05 EPIP/D-26 Sub: Plot No. D-26, GNEPIP, KASNA. Dear Sir, Please refer to our letter No. 116/SIDC/EPIP/D-26 dated 26.11.1996 by which the above plot No. D-26 Situated in industrial area, GNEPIP, Kasna (Gautambudh Nagar) was allotted to you on the conditions that you will make payment of all outstanding amount with interest within stipulated period as mentioned in letter No. 116/SIDC/EPIP/D-26 dated 26.11.96. We regret to inform you that in spite of our notices No. 2953/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 5.2.2000, letter NO. 618/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 3.10.2000, letter NO. 755/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 16.11.2000, letter NO. 35/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 9.4.2001, letter NO. 579/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 16.8.2001, letter NO. 1150/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 12.2.2002, letter NO. 105/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 26.4.2002, letter NO. 441/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 12.8.2002, letter NO. 625/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 8.10.2002, letter NO. 953/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 18.12.2002, letter NO. 990/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 23.9.2003, letter NO. 1052/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 10.9.2004 & letter NO. 618/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 3.10.2000, letter NO. 755/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 16.11.2000, letter NO. 35/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 9.4.2001, letter NO. 579/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 16.8.2001, letter NO. 1150/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 12.2.2002, letter NO. 105/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 26.4.2002, letter NO. 441/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 12.8.2002, letter NO. 625/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 8.10.2002, letter NO. 953/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 18.12.2002, letter NO. 990/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 23.9.2003, letter NO. 1052/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 10.9.2004 & letter NO. 1186/SIDC/DPIP/D-26 dated 26.10.2004, you have failed to make the payment and did not take any action for the execution of the fresh lease deed. The allotment of above plot is therefore CANCELLED with all consequences including forfeiture of all deposits made by you. Yours faithfully Sd/- illegible (MONIKA KUMAR) DY. MANAGER No. ...................../ Date................ SIDC/EPIP/D-26 Copy forwarded to the following for information and necessary action : 1. Dy. General Manager (IM). UPSIDC Ltd. Kanpur. 2. Asstt. Manager (A/Cs), GNEPIP, Noida. DY. MANAGER “ * * * * * * * * * Order Dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure- -1) “U.P. State Industrial Greater Noida Export Promotion Industrial Park Development Corporation Ltd. Surajpur-V, Lasna. Greater Noida. Shri Praveen Kuar Grover Distt.: Gauttam Buddha Nagar- 201306 F-212, Mansrover Garden Telefax: 0120- 2341880, 2341526 New Delhi-110015 Email: Gnepip @ de 12.vsnl.net.in Reference No. 216/SIDC/EPIP/D-26 Dated:28.4.05 fo"k;% Hkw[k.M la[;k D-26 ds vkoaVu dks iquZthfor fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] a d`i;k vki mijksDr fo+'k; dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA bl lEcU/k esa vkidks lwfpr djuk gS fd fnukad&16-4-2005 dks lEiUu gqbZ vkoaVu lfefr dh cSBd esa vkoaVu lfefr )kjk vkids vuqjks/k ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr mijksDr Hkw[k.M ds vkoaVu dks iquZthfor fd;s tkus lEcU/kh izLrko dks fujLr dj fn;k x;k gSA lwpukFkZ izsf"kr] Hkonh;k g0 v0 ¼eksfudk dqekj½ mi&izca/kd^^ * * * * * * * * * 11. It reflects from the perusal of the order dated 27.1.2005 for cancellation of allotment of plot (Annexure 2), that reference of various notices has been made in it and after that it has been stated that the petitioner has failed to make the payment and has not take any action for the execution of the fresh lease deed, therefore, allotment of the above plot (D-26) is cancelled with all consequence including forfeiture of all deposits made by the petitioner. There is no reference of the show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004 in it and no show-cause notice or any other notice referred in Annexure—2 have been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit or supplementary counter-affidavit to show that what were the contents of various notices referred in Annexure—2 or of show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004. It appears that all these referred notices are deliberately kept away from the Court by the respondents. 12. As per paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit order for cancellation of allotment of plot has been passed under clause No. 15 (a) and 15 (b) of the allotment letter. 13. Clause 15 (a) of the allotment letter provides cancellation of allotment, in case of failure to execute Licence Agreement/Lease Deed and /or take possession of the land as mentioned in clause 11 and 13 ‘time’ has been shown essence in this clause. 14. Clause 11 states that allottee will apply for and obtain power connection from NOIDA Power Company Ltd or U.P. State Electricity Board as the case may be at the end and at the cost of the allottee. This clause has no application in the present case as the allotment has not been cancelled on this count. 15. Clause 13 of the letter of allotment states that the allottee will take over possession of the land executing the licence agreement within 30 days from the date of inviting the allottee to do so or within three months from the date of allotment letter whichever is earlier. 16. In his letter dated 24.1.2004 (Annexure 6), petitioner has prayed that his plot D-122 be changed to D-26 so that he can conclude the lease agreement of the plot within 30 days. He also assured in this letter that he shall start his project within three months of completion of agreement. 17. In his other letter dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure 7), petitioner has prayed for issuing fresh letter of allotment of plot D-26 to him so that he may complete all directorate of Industry registration and other registration formalities with other Government department registration, agreements at the proper address of plot allotted to him. He undertakes to pay all outstanding dues on receipt of allotment letter for Plot D-26. The petitioner also gave undertaking to start his project at the earliest. 18. In the present case, Plot D-26 is allotted to the petitioner on 6.7.2004 as is evident from perusal of Annexure 8. He undertakes to pay all outstanding dues on receipt of allotment letter for Plot D-26. The petitioner also gave undertaking to start his project at the earliest. 18. In the present case, Plot D-26 is allotted to the petitioner on 6.7.2004 as is evident from perusal of Annexure 8. Petitioner has not invited to take possession of the land and to execute the licence agreement within 30 days therefore petitioner was expected to take possession of plot within three months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. This three months period from the date of issuance of letter of allotment has been expired on 6.10.2004. 19. In Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2008, M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others v. M/s. Hari Om Enterprises and another, the Apex Court has dealt matter of allotment of industrial plot, cancellation of allotment and resumption of plot in detail and has observed/held as under: “......33. The question as to whether the allottee had failed to comply with the terms and conditions was required to be determined. The terms of the contract would have to be construed having regard to the respective rights and obligations of the parties to perform their part of contract. It provides for issuance of a show-cause notice. It provides for refund of the principal amount, of course, without any interest. 34. Resumption of plot, it is trite, would not be automatic. 35. Clause 26 provides for an enabling clause. The decision of the Corporation is not final. An appeal lay there against. 36. The jurisdiction of a ‘State’ to resort to the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture ordinarily should be undertaken as a last resort. Keeping in view the fact that the Corporation was obligated to comply with the principles of natural justice and, particularly, in view of the fact that was required to determine the capacity as also bona fide of an entrepreneur to start an industrial undertaking on the plots, the Corporation was required to assign some reasons as to why the plot in question had to be resumed. While doing so, it evidently was required to take into consideration its own conduct. A party cannot take advantage of its own wrong. While a State takes penal action against the allottee, its bona fide would be one of the relevant factors before an order of resumption and forfeiture of the amount deposited is passed......... 38. While doing so, it evidently was required to take into consideration its own conduct. A party cannot take advantage of its own wrong. While a State takes penal action against the allottee, its bona fide would be one of the relevant factors before an order of resumption and forfeiture of the amount deposited is passed......... 38. Despite issuance of letter of offer of physical possession dated 20.12.2001, the fact that actual possession had not been handed over for a period of two years is not in dispute. The Corporation did not say that actual possession was not taken by the respondent despite offer having been made in that behalf. It, in its anxiety to set a time limit for ensuring that the commercial production starts at an early date, was expected at least to send a reminder. It failed and/or neglected to do so. For the purpose of approval of the building plan, the time taken by it also would have been a relevant factor for passing an order of resumption..... 40. A law far less a contract does not warrant compliance of the contractual or statutory obligations where it is otherwise impossible to do. An entrepreneur may start raising constructions over a plot only when the physical possession thereof is handed over and/or plan for construction of the building is approved. A State cannot ignore the aforementioned relevant factors..... 91. In this case, the respondent has clearly been discriminated against. Appellant’s action is clearly unfair and unreasonable. In any event, it has waived its right. Furthermore, it was a case where the principles of natural justice should have been complied with. 92. The High Court in, this case, in its impugned judgment has taken care to see that the object for grant of allotment were fulfilled being promotion of industrial growth. 93. Applying the principles of law as indicated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20235 of 2006 H.S.I.D.C. and others v. Mr. Anand Minda and another.......” 20. In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court has held as follows: “...57. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20235 of 2006 H.S.I.D.C. and others v. Mr. Anand Minda and another.......” 20. In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court has held as follows: “...57. We may, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law that the statutory right conferring the right of the respondent should never be resorted. We have merely laid down the principle giving some illustrations where it may not be used. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if the intention of the allottee is dishonest or with an ill motive and if the allottee does not make any payment in terms of the allotment or the statute with a dishonest view or any dishonest motive, then Section 8(1) can be taken recourse to.... 58. We, however, cannot but deprecate the conduct of the appellants in not making an endeavour to pay the instalments within a reasonable period. They, thus, did not pay the entire amount of the first instalment within the stipulated period; only a part payment was made in the year 1990 and 1992 by that time even the second instalment became due. They did not make any payment before the revisional authority despite the order passed by the appellate authority. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the appellant in C.A. No. 49 of 1999 should deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lacs) with the Estate Officer, Chandigarh within a period of ten weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order, which, in our opinion would meet the ends of justice. However, so far as the other matters are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in their cases, we do not intend to direct levy of any penalty on them.” 21. However, so far as the other matters are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in their cases, we do not intend to direct levy of any penalty on them.” 21. In the cases of Narayan Creation v. State of Uttarakhand and others in Writ Petition (M/s) 208 of 2010, M/s. Falcon Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and other in Writ Petition (M/S) 1008 of 2008, M/s. Uttaranchal Pachaging Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition (M/S) 443 of 2008, M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and three others in Writ Petition (M/S) 735 of 2008, M/s. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand and others in Writ Petition No. 2483 of 2007 (M/S), Uttrakhand High Court has after considering peculiar facts of each case granted relief to the petitioner against orders passed for cancellation of plots or rejection of representation against such orders while in case of M/s. Qualicare Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Uttaranchal and others in Writ Petition No. 1884 of 2007 (M/S) the writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merits. 22. In the case of Degamber Jain Society For Child Welfare and another v. State of U.P. and others in Writ C- No. 2954 of 2007 decided on 30.052014 while considering the matter of cancellation of a plot allotted to a school on the ground of non-execution of lease deed as desired by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, this Court has held as follows: “25 In view of the foregoing discussions, the order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall hand over possession of the plot to the petitioners within two months from the date of this order after getting all the formalities completed. The petitioner shall complete all the formalities as per the requirement within the stipulated period.” 23. Cases of Mahabir Auto Stores (supra), Union of India and others (supra), Harbans Lal Sahnia and another (supra), Jagmohan Singh (supra), M/s. Anil Service Station Azamgarh and another (supra), M/s. Navin Filling Station Nawabganj Bareilly (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, have no direct relevance with the present case as the question of maintainability of the writ petition is not challenged before us. 24. 24. In paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was informed vide show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004 and also in meeting attended by him in the office. 25. In reply to the above paragraph, the petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 18 of rejoinder-affidavit that neither any opportunity of hearing nor any show-cause notice has been issued to him before passing the order dated 27.1.2005. The so called show-cause notice dated 27.1.2005 has not been brought on record by the respondents and it is not evident as to whether the said show-cause notice was in respect of cancellation of plot. Thus the respondents failed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order dated 27.1.2005. 26. As stated earlier that the respondents have not produced any notice referred to in the order dated 27.1.2005 and specially show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004 and there is no any mention of the show notice in the order dated 27.1.2005 to the effect that the cancellation order is being passed due to failure of compliance of show-cause notice dated 27.1.2004. These facts goes to establish that any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. 27. Respondents were expected to take into consideration the following important facts and circumstances of the case while passing the order of cancellation of allotment of plot on 27.1.2005: 27.1 the petitioner has deposited at least 13, 45, 221.20 covering entire value of the plot alongwith interest up to 1.1.2002, i.e., much earlier from the date of passing the order for cancellation of allotment of plot. 27.2 they should also take into consideration other options available to them to recover the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,04,000/- relating to maintenance charges being a small amount in comparison to the amount of Rs. 13, 45, 221.20 already deposited by the petitioner as value of plot and interest etc. much earlier to passing of the cancellation order. 27.3 and plot D-26 was finally allotted to him on 6.7.2004. As such, order for cancellation of allotment of plot has been passed just after six months and few days which is contrary to averments of para 4 of supplementary counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that according to terms and condition of letter of allotment dated 26.11.1996, the allottee was required to start production within two years from the date of allotment. 28. From the perusal of the order dated 27th January, 2005, it appears that the allotment has been cancelled mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to make the payment and did not take any action for execution of the fresh lease deed. 29. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity whatsoever has been given before passing of the impugned order. 30. In the counter-affidavit, it is referred that one show-cause notice has been given to the petitioner on 27th January, 2004, but neither the same finds place in the impugned order nor copy of the said show-cause notice has been annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that any show-cause notice has been given. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order, dated 27th January, 2005, has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. 31. So far as the allegation that the petitioner failed to make the payment is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the cost of the plot was Rs. 8,19,965.10 paise against which the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 13,58,099.95 paise by 1st January, 2002 alongwith the interest, service charges, use and occupation charges. The details of such deposit have been given in Annexure-9 to the writ petition which is not disputed. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for non-payment of the maintenance charges, the allotment could not have been cancelled inasmuch as the entire cost of the land had already been deposited, which is the requirement of the allotment letter. 33. We find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have not disputed that the value of the land, alongwith the interest and other charges, has been deposited and only the maintenance charges could not be deposited. The Apex Court in the case of M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others (supra) has held that the step to cancel allotment should be resorted as the last recourse. 34. Since value of the plot, alongwith the interest and other charges, has already been deposited much before the allotment of Plot No. D-26 on 6th July, 2004, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to make the payment towards value of the plot. 35. 34. Since value of the plot, alongwith the interest and other charges, has already been deposited much before the allotment of Plot No. D-26 on 6th July, 2004, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to make the payment towards value of the plot. 35. So far as the maintenance charges are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that since no maintenance has been carried out by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay such amount inasmuch as petitioner sought time for deposit of the amount. 36. We are of the view that for non-payment of maintenance charges, allotment should not have been cancelled. In any view of the matter, in case if the opportunity would have been given, the petitioner would have deposited the maintenance charges. 37. So far as the possession is concerned, we find that the lease-deed was to be executed on the establishment of the factory and on the start of the production. Plot No. D-26 has ultimately been allotted on 6th July, 2004. As per the original terms and conditions, the factory was to be established within two years from the date of allotment. That period has yet not been expired. The petitioner was having sufficient period available to establish the factory and start the production and thereafter take steps for execution of the lease deed, therefore, cancellation of the allotment before expiry of two yeas’ period from 6th July, 2004 was wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 38. In view of the above, we are of the view that the order dated 27th January, 2005 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 39. So far as the order, dated 28th April, 2005, rejecting the application for restoration/re-allotment of Plot No. D-26 is concerned, we find that the application has been rejected without assigning any reason in a mechanical manner by a non-speaking order. Therefore, this order is also not sustainable inasmuch as we have already held the order dated 27th January, 2005 unsustainable. 40. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 27th January, 2005 and 28th April, 2005 are hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to proceed in accordance to law. ——————