JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri J.J. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Despite case being called out in the revised list, no one appears on behalf of the respondents, though name of Shri Anuj Pratap Singh, Shri Arvind Srivastava and Shri Arvind Singh are shown in the cause list. However, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents through Shri Arvind Srivastava is on record. 3. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, as set out in the pleadings of the parties, is as under. 4. An application was made by the petitioner on 27.9.2000 before respondent No. 1, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent-corporation’) for allotment of an industrial plot for an area of 200 sq. mtr. The application was accompanied with a project report for setting up an industrial unit on the plot applied for manufacture of iron hardware. After processing the application, an allotment order dated 3.10.2000 was issued to the petitioner. Apart from other, the terms and conditions of the allotment letter contained a stipulation in clause 13 that the allottee will have to take over possession of the land executing the licence agreement within 30 days from the date of inviting him to do so or within three months from the issuance of the letter, whichever is earlier. Clause 15 (a) contained a stipulation that if the allottee fails to execute licence agreement/lease deed and/or take possession of the land as mentioned within the time stipulated in clause 13, the allotment may be liable to be cancelled. 5. It is the own case set up by the petitioner that he regularly deposited instalment up to the year 2003. However, thereafter, on account of some financial difficulty, there was irregularity in adhering to the payment schedule. Respondent No. 2, Regional Manager of the respondent-corporation issued a notice dated 27.5.2003 calling upon the petitioner to get the lease deed executed in his favour within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the allotment would be cancelled. The petitioner accepts of having received the notice through registered post. Some negotiation took place between the petitioner and the respondent-corporation and a demand letter dated 8.12.2004 was issued to the petitioner for making payment of an outstanding sum of Rs. 4389/-, which amount, the petitioner alleges to have deposited. The petitioner accepts of having received the notice through registered post. Some negotiation took place between the petitioner and the respondent-corporation and a demand letter dated 8.12.2004 was issued to the petitioner for making payment of an outstanding sum of Rs. 4389/-, which amount, the petitioner alleges to have deposited. However, still neither the petitioner got the lease deed executed nor took over possession. Another notice dated 17.1.2005 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to get the lease deed executed within 30 days and to take over possession and complete the constructions, failing which the allotment shall be cancelled. Another notice dated 30.7.2005 is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner, which has not been brought on record of the case. However, in response to the said notice, the petitioner made an application dated 15.9.2005 seeking extension of time by about 18 to 20 months for execution of the lease deed and taking over possession and constructions. In response to the application dated 15.9.2005 made by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 21.2.2006 required the petitioner to furnish a time bound programme for setting the unit alongwith an affidavit for consideration of his request for extension of time. When there was no response from the petitioner to the letter dated 21.2.2006, respondent No. 2, Regional Manager vide order dated 18.5.2006, which has been filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to establish the unit despite various letters and reminders and notice. 6. After the order dated 18.5.2006 was passed by respondent No. 2, it appears that petitioner made various applications dated 15.12.2006, 3.11.2007, 21.1.2008, 28.1.2008 and 25.2.2008 seeking restoration of his allotment. The request made by the petitioner for revival of his allotment was rejected by respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was duly informed about the same vide order dated 25.3.2008. The said letter categorically records that vide notice dated 30.7.2005, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in response whereof, a time bound programme was to be submitted by him on affidavit, which was not done and, thus, the request for allotment made after such a long gap of time, was not liable to be considered. It appears that petitioner made various applications and representations before the respondent-authorities. It appears that petitioner made various applications and representations before the respondent-authorities. Thereafter, he, on his own, again made a request for revival of his allotment and deposited the processing fee of Rs. 2000/- on 26.8.2008. 7. It is pertinent to point out that the revival application and the alleged processing fee was deposited by the petitioner on his own as there is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was required to do so by the respondent-corporation. On 6.3.2009, the petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking answer to the following questions. “1. Whether the amount deposited on 26.8.2008 through bank challan has been received by the office of the respondent-corporation? 2. Whether the record relating to allotment is available in the office? 3. Despite processing fee having been deposited, why the allotment has not been revived.” 8. In pursuance to the aforesaid questions, an information was sent to the petitioner on 17.4.2009. In reply to question No. 3, it was stated that since the application for revival was not accompanied by any time bound programme for establishing the unit, as such, it was not possible to revive the application. It was further stated in the reply by respondent No. 2 that, in case, petitioner was willing for revival, he should submit an affidavit setting out a time bound schedule for establishing the unit. 9. In pursuance to the aforesaid answer, petitioner filed an affidavit before the respondent No. 2 stating that after getting the possession of the plot, he shall make all efforts to complete the constructions within the time frame. 10. Respondent-corporation again issued a letter dated 23.5.2009 informing the petitioner that the affidavit submitted by him is not in required format and he should submit a time bound programme for constructing the manufacturing unit within 7 days on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper. It was only after a reminder was issued, the petitioner submitted an affidavit on Rs. 100/- non-judicial stamp. 11. It appears that when no decision was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant petition. 12. Though no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, but a counter-affidavit has been filed, which has been perused by us. 13. 100/- non-judicial stamp. 11. It appears that when no decision was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant petition. 12. Though no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, but a counter-affidavit has been filed, which has been perused by us. 13. It has been pleaded in the counter-affidavit that allotment made in favour of the petitioner was already cancelled vide order dated 18.5.2006 and his representation for revival of the allotment was rejected vide order dated 25.3.2008 and both the orders having not been challenged, have attained finality and, thus, the revival of the allotment of the petitioner is not liable to be considered. 14. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since in reply to the application made under Right to Information Act, it was indicated that, in case, the petitioner was desired of restoration of his allotment, then he should submit on an affidavit, within 7 days, a time bound programme for establishing of an industrial unit, which was filed by the petitioner and, thus, respondent-corporation opened up the petitioner’s right to seek restoration of his plot, subject to fulfilment of conditions by filing an affidavit within 7 days giving a time bound schedule for establishing an industrial unit and, thus, it cannot be treated that finality has been attached to the cancellation order. 15. The argument itself is misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted a plot on 3.10.2000. Till 18.5.2006, when the order of cancellation was passed, he was given ample number of opportunities to get the lease deed executed and take possession of the plot, which he failed. The cancellation was reiterated by rejecting his representation on 25.3.2008. The said orders have never been challenged by the petitioner and admittedly they have attained finality. vide letter dated 23.5.2009, the petitioner was given another opportunity to submit an undertaking on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper within 7 days giving time bound schedule for raising construction of the industrial unit. The petitioner submitted the desired affidavit on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper on 5.6.2009, i.e., after expiry of the period of 7 days, provided to him for the purpose. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that petitioner has been grossly negligent in carrying out the obligation imposed upon him by the terms and conditions of the allotment order. 100/- stamp paper on 5.6.2009, i.e., after expiry of the period of 7 days, provided to him for the purpose. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that petitioner has been grossly negligent in carrying out the obligation imposed upon him by the terms and conditions of the allotment order. For a period of almost 10 years, the petitioner was afforded numerous opportunities, but he failed to avail the same and neither got the lease executed nor took over possession nor submitted any time bound schedule for raising construction. The fate of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner stood sealed when the order of cancellation dated 18.5.2006 was passed, which has been allowed to attain finality. Even thereafter, on the representation made by the petitioner, various opportunities were given to him, but he never availed the same within the time frame allowed by the respondent-corporation and did not comply with the terms and conditions within the time. 17. Thus, after about 15 years of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 3.8.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 on the representation of the petitioner reiterating the earlier cancellation order dated 18.5.2006 nor we are inclined to issue any mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for revival/restoration of his allotment. 18. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. 19. However, in the facts, there shall be no order as to costs. ———————