JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 which was enacted with an object to make special provisions for securing the orderly establishment and organization of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Gujarat and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Development Corporation, is found to be totally ignored by the Officers of the respondent Corporation in dealing with the case when the Industrialists come forward to establish an industry in a remote area of the State of Gujarat. 2. In background of the aforesaid context, I would like to narrate the red tapism in which a citizen is fixed pursuant to the action and inaction on the part of the Officers of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation which has been established under Section 3 of the GIDC Act, 1962 and which is a Government of Gujarat undertaking. Vibrant Gujarat Summit is being organized every year by the State of Gujarat with an intention to attract interested persons from all over the world to make investment in the State of Gujarat so that more employment is created and other benefits could be gained. Different Government undertakings like GIDC, which is allotting lands to individuals, do take part in the said Summit. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under:- 3.1 In the year 2011, Vibrant Gujarat which is known as The Global Business Hub and Global Summit, was organized by the State of Gujarat wherein the respondent Corporation took part and made offers to interested persons. One Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - (petitioner herein with new name) had applied for allotment of plot admeasuring 50,000 Sq. Mts. to the respondent Corporation vide online application dated 21.12.2010 and in pursuance of the said application, entered into Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU' for short) on 12.1.2011 wherein the respondent Corporation assured that the Corporation would facilitate the said Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited to obtain necessary permissions/registrations/approvals/clearances etc. 3.2 Meanwhile, the petitioner changed its name from Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited to Dhruv EPC Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Company') and in accordance with the provisions under the Companies Act, 1956, necessary certificate was also issued by the authority on 29.1.2011. 3.2 Meanwhile, the petitioner changed its name from Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited to Dhruv EPC Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Company') and in accordance with the provisions under the Companies Act, 1956, necessary certificate was also issued by the authority on 29.1.2011. The petitioner Company also informed the respondent Corporation about its change of name vide communication dated 23.3.2011 and requested the respondent Corporation to change the name of the petitioner Company in the record of the respondent Corporation. Along with the said letter, certificate issued by Assistant Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Havelli was also annexed. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received a communication dated 31.3.2011 in the old name by the respondent Corporation whereby the respondent Corporation offered Plot No. D-2/E/212 at Dahej II Industrial Estate admeasuring 2017.78 Sq. Mts. to the petitioner Company at the price of Rs. 550/- per Sq. Mtr. and the total price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 11,09,779/-. 3.3 Since the petitioner Company was interested in larger area of plot, immediately, a communication was sent by the petitioner Company to all concerned on 18.4.2011 and requested to allot plot having size of 50,000 Sq. Mts. Similar request was made by the petitioner Company on 21.4.2011 to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. Reminders were also sent on 20.6.2011, 7.7.2011, 19.9.2011 etc. Meanwhile, the petitioner Company received a communication dated 24.8.2011 from the respondent Corporation that since the petitioner had failed to make the payment as per the offer letter 31.3.2011, his allotment of plot being Plot No. D-2/E/212 at Dahej II Industrial Estate admeasuring 2017.78 Sq. Mts. is cancelled. However, by another communication dated 17.9.2011, the petitioner Company was assured that if the petitioner is interested in plot having area of 50,000 Sq. Mts., the petitioner was asked to resubmit his project with correct investment figures in order to put up the proposal before the Committee. The petitioner replied to it by letter dated 19.9.2011. By communication dated 4.4.2011, again a request was made by the petitioner to GIDC to change its name. Similar request was made by communication dated 21.11.2011. 3.4 Thereafter, by communication dated 11.1.2012, the respondent Corporation issued offer-cum-allotment letter by which Plot No. D-II/E/338 in Dahej-II Industrial Estate admeasuring 46,719.84 Sq. Mts. was offered to the petitioner. By communication dated 4.4.2011, again a request was made by the petitioner to GIDC to change its name. Similar request was made by communication dated 21.11.2011. 3.4 Thereafter, by communication dated 11.1.2012, the respondent Corporation issued offer-cum-allotment letter by which Plot No. D-II/E/338 in Dahej-II Industrial Estate admeasuring 46,719.84 Sq. Mts. was offered to the petitioner. However, the price of the plot was raised and was fixed at Rs. 715/- per Sq. Mts. and the total price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 3,34,04,686/-. By the said communication, the petitioner was directed to make 50% payment of the net allotment price i.e. Rs. 1,75,37,460/- and the balance amount to be paid in 12 equal quarterly installments, by post dated cheques. Since the price was raised by the respondent Corporation, a request was made by the petitioner on 18.1.2012 to consider his case as per the old rate. Though a request was made by the petitioner on 18.1.2012 to reduce the price, on 23.3.2012, the petitioner on a safer side deposited an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- i.e. 50% amount as per the offer-cum-allotment letter dated 11.1.2012. Before making the said payment, a request was made to GIDC by the petitioner by communication dated 3.1.2012 requesting the Corporation to issue allotment letter in the new name of the petitioner Company. However, the respondent Corporation continued to correspond in the old name of the petitioner Company. Since the petitioner was not able to get funds for the remaining payment, a detailed representation was made to the respondent Corporation to issue allotment letter in the new name of the petitioner Company so that the Company can avail loan from the financial institutions since the allotment letter was issued by the respondent Corporation in the old name of the petitioner Company. Similar communications were made by the petitioner Company to the respondent Corporation on 8.2.2012, 10.2.2012, 16.2.2012 and 6.3.2012. Instead of changing the name of the petitioner Company, the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 5.5.2012 received by the petitioner in its old name, refused to change the name by stating that since the petitioner Company has not made the down payment within the stipulated time limit and treated the offer-cum-allotment as cancelled. Having received the said communication, a detailed representation was made on 19.5.2012 referring to all the correspondence took place prior to cancellation of the offer-cum-allotment. Having received the said communication, a detailed representation was made on 19.5.2012 referring to all the correspondence took place prior to cancellation of the offer-cum-allotment. 3.5 Since the petitioner did not receive any response from the respondent Corporation, vide letter dated 28.6.2012, the petitioner Company sought refund of amount deposited by it on 23.3.2012. After a period of about four months, the petitioner was served with a communication on 30.10.2002 which is in the form of order and though an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- was paid by the petitioner Company, it was stated in the said order that the petitioner would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,40,29,968/- as refund. Since the petitioner was interested in establishing manufacturing unit, the Officers of the petitioner Company met the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation and requested to revive the offer. Pursuant to the same, again an offer-cum-allotment letter was addressed to the petitioner on 30.3.2013 in the old name of the petitioner Company and the petitioner was asked to pay remaining amount of Rs. 1,36,45,759/- which included amounts towards delayed interest, interest on 50% down payment etc. 3.6 In response to the said communication, the petitioner Company informed the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 3.5.2013 and explained that the petitioner Company was not at fault since it was not able to raise funds because the offer-cum-allotment was issued in the old name of the petitioner Company. In response thereto, the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 21.6.2013 informed the petitioner Company that its case was not considered by the competent authority and directed the petitioner Company to pay Rs. 1,42,57,888/- (which included interest amount of Rs. 31,48,094/- upto 30.6.2013). 3.7 Being dissatisfied with non-allotment of plot and non-refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner Company, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Corporation appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply dated 16.2.2014 through its Assistant Manager and opposed grant of any relief. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 23.4.2014. 5. The matter was heard by this Court on 6.5.2014 and following order was passed:-- "Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. Rule returnable on 02/07/2014. Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 23.4.2014. 5. The matter was heard by this Court on 6.5.2014 and following order was passed:-- "Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. Rule returnable on 02/07/2014. Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. It would be open for the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner if he is ready and willing to pay the remaining 50% amount." 6. In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner made representation on 14.5.2014. Again the respondent Corporation replied on 19.6.2014 in the old name of the petitioner and was asked to remain present on 27.6.2014. Accordingly, the Officers of the petitioner Company remained present and shown readiness and willingness to pay the remaining amount. Thereafter, the petitioner in its old name received a communication from the respondent Corporation by registered Post dated 7.8.2014 that now the value of the plot is Rs. 5,68,59,052/- since the price of the land is fixed at Rs. 1140/- per Sq. Mtr. So, the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 3,93,21,592/-. All these documents were placed by the petitioner along with additional affidavit dated 1.12.2014. 7. Thereafter, during the course of hearing, Mr. R.V. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 3.8.2016 and placed proposal forwarded by the petitioner dated 6.10.2015 to the respondent Corporation that since the price of the plot has gone much higher, the amount deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,75,37,460/- may be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 13.50% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund. It is also stated in the said proposal that the petitioner shall waive all its claim qua the allotment and possession of the plot in question. Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior advocate appearing with Mr. Rituraj Meena for the respondent Corporation has submitted that refund of the amount already deposited by the petitioner can be considered by the respondent Corporation and shall be returned in accordance with the Policy of the Corporation. 8. In this background, the matter was heard by the Court. 8.1 Mr. Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior advocate appearing with Mr. Rituraj Meena for the respondent Corporation has submitted that refund of the amount already deposited by the petitioner can be considered by the respondent Corporation and shall be returned in accordance with the Policy of the Corporation. 8. In this background, the matter was heard by the Court. 8.1 Mr. R.V. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by taking me through the correspondence and the conduct of the respondent Corporation vehemently submitted that when the MOU was executed between the parties on 12.1.2011 and when the petitioner had requested to allot land having area of 50,000 Sq. Mtrs., the respondent Corporation initially, allotted a plot which is having area of less than 5% of its demand. He would submit that even before the offer-cum-allotment letter dated 31.3.2011, the petitioner by a communication dated 23.2.2011 informed the respondent Corporation to issue the offer-cum-allotment letter in its new name since the name of the petitioner Company was changed. The petitioner also produced certificate issued by Assistant Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Havelli along with the said letter. Hence, the respondent Corporation before issuing first offer-cum-allotment letter by which only 2017.78 Sq. Mts. of land was granted, ought to have refused to do the same if they were not interested in offering plot to the petitioner. He would further submit that since the plot offered to the petitioner was not sufficient, a communication was sent to the respondent Corporation by the petitioner Company on 21.4.2011 by which a request was made to allot 50,000 Sq. Mts. of land. He would submit that a specific request was made by the petitioner Company by letters dated 7.7.2011, 4.11.2011 and 21.11.2011. Thereafter, vide offer-cum-allotment letter dated 11.1.2012, the respondent Corporation offered another plot bearing Plot No. D-II/E/338 in Dahej-II Industrial Estate admeasuring 46719.84 Sq. Mts. in the old name of the petitioner and raised the price from Rs. 550/- per Sq. Mtrs. to Rs. 715/- per Sq. Mtr. Since the petitioner was interested in establishing a manufacturing unit, the petitioner requested to fix price at Rs. 550/- per Sq. Mtr. for the said plot. However, having not received any response, an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- being 50% of the net allotment price was paid by the petitioner by Demand Draft. Mtrs. to Rs. 715/- per Sq. Mtr. Since the petitioner was interested in establishing a manufacturing unit, the petitioner requested to fix price at Rs. 550/- per Sq. Mtr. for the said plot. However, having not received any response, an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- being 50% of the net allotment price was paid by the petitioner by Demand Draft. He would submit that even at that time, the respondent Corporation ought to have refused that the offer is given to the petitioner in its old name and hence, the respondent Corporation shall not accept the same. Instead of the same, the amount was accepted by the respondent Corporation from the petitioner. He would submit that even before the said payment was made by the petitioner and before the offer-cum-allotment letter was issued, a reminder was sent by the petitioner on 3.1.2012 specifically informing the respondent Corporation to issue fresh offer-cum-allotment letter in the new name of the petitioner Company i.e. Dhruv EPC Solutions Private Limited. However, there was no response and, therefore, a detailed representation was made by the petitioner on 8.2.2012 describing the difficulties in getting the funds in the old name of the petitioner Company. He would further submit that even on 6.3.2012, similar request was made by the petitioner. 8.2 He would further submit that after receiving the amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- on 23.3.2012, the petitioner received a communication dated 5.5.2012 wherein it was stated that the request of the petitioner to change the name was not considered by the Corporation as the petitioner has not made the down payment within the stipulated time limit as per offer-cum-allotment letter dated 11.1.2012. He would submit that the petitioner was shocked and surprised that the manner and method adopted by the Officers of the respondent Corporation in dealing with the petitioner Company after receiving 50% of the amount as per offer-cum-allotment letter, which the petitioner had collected and paid from its own sources. He would further submit that several requests were made by the petitioner to issue offer-cum-allotment letter in the new name of the petitioner Company so that the petitioner can avail the bank loan etc. by producing the same before the financial institutions. He would further submit that several requests were made by the petitioner to issue offer-cum-allotment letter in the new name of the petitioner Company so that the petitioner can avail the bank loan etc. by producing the same before the financial institutions. Instead of responding to the request made by the petitioner, immediately after the MOU, the respondent Corporation has come forward for the first time about the refusal of the change of the name of the petitioner Company. He would submit that having fed up with the conduct of the Officers of the respondent Corporation, the respondent had no other alternate but to write a communication dated 28.6.2012 by which he requested to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- deposited by the petitioner on 23.3.2012. Instead of refunding the said amount, the petitioner received a communication on 30.10.2002 that the petitioner would be entitled for the refund of Rs. 1,40,29,968/-, after deducting certain amounts. 8.3 Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the petitioner having some hope again made a representation to the respondent Corporation for allotment of the plot. However, he received a communication dated 30.3.2013 from the Corporation reviving the offer-cum-allotment. However, the amount of the plot has been increased by charging interest on delayed period and interest on 50% down payment etc. Therefore, the petitioner again made representation to consider his case. In reply to the same, again the respondent Corporation issued letter dated 21.6.2013 by which another amount was demanded by the respondent Corporation. He would submit that the petitioner having found that the Officers are under one or the other pretext demanding fabulous charges for the plot which is situated in interior part, had no alternate but to file the present petition. He would submit that even when the petitioner approached the respondent Corporation subsequent to the order dated 8.5.2014, the price demanded by the respondent Corporation has reached from Rs. 550/- to Rs. 1140/- per Sq. Mtr. which comes to Rs. 5,68,59,052/- which amount the petitioner is unable to pay and hence, would not like to deal with the respondent Corporation any further. He has, therefore, submitted that the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation may be refunded with interest @ 13.50% which the respondent Corporation is demanding for late payment. 8.4 Mr. Mtr. which comes to Rs. 5,68,59,052/- which amount the petitioner is unable to pay and hence, would not like to deal with the respondent Corporation any further. He has, therefore, submitted that the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation may be refunded with interest @ 13.50% which the respondent Corporation is demanding for late payment. 8.4 Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the respondent Corporation is a State and if it is found by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the claim made by the petitioner is of a contractual in nature and is found that the action of the State authority is arbitrary and unlawful, then a party cannot be asked to resort to the remedy of a suit and this Court can exercise its ample powers and can issue writ of mandamus. He would submit that respondent Corporation is established by the State of Gujarat which develop Government lands and allot the plots after receiving the price which is a monopoly body established by the State of Gujarat. Therefore, it is expected from such body to act reasonably well who comes forward to avail the facility provided by it. He would submit that a writ can certainly be issued if the instrumentality of the State (the respondent Corporation) acts contrary to the public good, public interest unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in its contractual or statutory obligation. 8.5 In support of his submissions, Mr. Deshmukh has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 wherein it has been held that a writ can be issued against the State or instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation if it is found that the authority is acting contrary to the same. 8.6 He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and others, (2010) 11 SCC 186 . Mr. 8.6 He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and others, (2010) 11 SCC 186 . Mr. Deshmukh has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noble Resources Limited v. State of Orissa and another, (2006) 10 SCC 236 wherein it has been held that even at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract, if the High Court examines the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finds that the authority is acting contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ can be issued against such arbitrary action. 8.7 Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that since the petitioner has declared that he is unable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,68,59,052/-, the respondent Corporation be directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,75,37,460/- without any deduction and the respondent Corporation be further directed to pay interest @ 13.50% since the amount was used by the petitioner for a considerable long time since the respondent is charging the said rate of interest from an individual in case of delayed payments etc. He has, therefore, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rituraj Meena, for respondent Corporation would submit that the case put forward by the petitioner is purely of a contractual nature. Therefore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions that High Court would be slow in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by calling upon one party to act according to the contractual terms. He would submit that an offer-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 31.3.2011 and the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,09,779/- within a stipulated time. However, the same was not deposited and, therefore, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 24.8.2011 that his allotment is treated as closed. However, his case was considered afresh subsequent to his representation and the petitioner was issued offer-cum-allotment letter on 11.1.2012 by which Plot No. D-II/E/338 in Dahej-II Industrial Estate was allotted admeasuring 46,719.84 Sq. Mts. and the price was fixed at Rs. 715/- per Sq. Mtr. However, his case was considered afresh subsequent to his representation and the petitioner was issued offer-cum-allotment letter on 11.1.2012 by which Plot No. D-II/E/338 in Dahej-II Industrial Estate was allotted admeasuring 46,719.84 Sq. Mts. and the price was fixed at Rs. 715/- per Sq. Mtr. In pursuance of the said offer, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- on 23.3.2012. Thereafter, again the case of the petitioner was considered afresh and latest market price was fixed by the respondent Corporation at Rs. 5,68,59,052/- since the price of the land per Sq. Mtr. is fixed at Rs. 1140/- per Sq. Mtr. Therefore, the grievance about the hike in the price is without any basis. In the said offer-cum-allotment order, the payment can be made through two options, i.e. (i) Upfront payment and (ii) Installment Payment. In the second option, the petitioner has to make 50% of the net allotment price initially and for the remaining balance capital, the same shall be payable in 12 post dated cheques equal quarterly installments with 13.50% rate of interest and has to pay 1% administrative charges and other charges. The petitioner was required to pay the amount within 30 days from the receipt of the offer-cum-allotment order which he did not pay and requested the Corporation to extend the time. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the amount which was to be paid on or before 11.2.2012, the same was paid on 23.3.2012 i.e. beyond the prescribed period. He would further submit that even the 12 post dated cheques were not handed over by the petitioner. He, therefore, would submit that the respondent Corporation was right in treating the offer-cum-allotment order as closed and the same was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 5.5.2012. He would submit that since the petitioner was insisting for refund, calculations were made according to the Policy and was asked to collect the amount of Rs. 1,40,29,968/- which the petitioner did not accept and repeated his demand of the plot. Since the petitioner had not paid the full amount, the petitioner had lost interest on the remaining amount of 50% which was not paid by the petitioner for a long period. Therefore, such amount was demanded with interest which the petitioner did not pay and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to ask for refund of the said amount along with interest. Therefore, such amount was demanded with interest which the petitioner did not pay and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to ask for refund of the said amount along with interest. By taking me through the details calculated by the respondent Corporation as per the Policy dated 17.4.2004 annexed along with the additional affidavit filed during the hearing of the petition, he would submit that the petitioner shall be entitled for refund only under the said Policy. He would submit that the amount of refund is yet not decided and if the petitioner would approach the respondent Corporation for refund, appropriate refund shall be given to the petitioner in accordance with the Policy. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed and the demand made by the petitioner during the course of hearing of the petition of refund with interest may not be entertained. 9.1 Mr. Marshall would further submit that the respondent Corporation cannot deviate from the Policy and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited and another v. Shivani Engineering Industries, (2015) 7 SCC 241 wherein it has been held that Corporation or the Development Authority cannot deviate from the terms of the allotment contained in the allotment letter and relevant agreement etc. and, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner be refused. 10. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the present petition:- "[A] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by directing the respondent Corporation to allot the Plot No. D-II/E/338 admeasuring 46719.84 Sq. Mtrs. At Dahej - II Industrial Estate @ Rs. 550/- per Sq. Mtr. And be further pleased to direct the respondent Corporation to reschedule the installments from the date of possession of the plot in question, in the interest of justice; [B] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the decision of respondent dated 05-05-2012 (Annexure-K), dated 30-10-2002 (Annexure-M) as well as dated 30-03-2013 (Annexure-O) asking for payment of interest on delayed period, by declaring the said decision as malafide, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to hand over actual and physical possession of Plot No. D-II/E/338 admeasuring 46719.84 Sq. Mtrs. At Dahej - II Industrial Estate, on such terms and condition as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice; [D] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice." 11. As stated herein above, pursuant to the order dated 6.5.2014 of this Court, the petitioner did approach the respondent Corporation and shown his readiness and willingness to deposit remaining 50% amount. However, the petitioner was served with letter dated 7.8.2014 that the allotment price of the said plot has been increased from Rs. 715 to Rs. 1140 per Sq. Mtr. and total value of the said plot was fixed at Rs. 5,68,59,052/- and the petitioner was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,93,21,592/- i.e. the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 2,17,84,132/- more than the offer made by the respondent Corporation on 11.1.2012. The petitioner was unable to pay the said huge amount fixed by the Corporation and asked for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner in October, 2015 i.e. during the pendency of the petition. However, there was no response from the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner placed on record a proposal dated 6.10.2015 and declared that the petitioner is now not interested in the plot by paying huge amount and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- be refunded with interest @ 13.50% p.a. which is being charged by the respondent Corporation. 12. Since the petitioner is not interested in getting the plot, the Court has to decide whether the request made by the petitioner for refund of the amount along with interest @ 13.50 is required to be entertained or not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Prima facie, it appears that the relationship between the respondent Corporation and the petitioner are of contractual nature which has not completed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has while dealing with interpretation of insurance contract held in paragraph 27 as under:- "27. 13. Prima facie, it appears that the relationship between the respondent Corporation and the petitioner are of contractual nature which has not completed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has while dealing with interpretation of insurance contract held in paragraph 27 as under:- "27. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable." 14. In the above referred decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts by observing that prerogative writ will not normally be exercised to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable. Paragraph 28 of the said decision reads as under:- "28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power [See: Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., 1998 (8) SCC 1 ]. And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction." 15. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of Noble Resources Limited (Supra) has held in paragraphs 15, 26 and 27 as under:- "15. It is trite that if an action on the part of the State is violative the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. A distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny would be more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While exercising contractual powers also, the government bodies may be subjected to judicial review in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism on its part. Indisputably, inherent limitations exist, but it would not be correct to opine that under no circumstances a writ will lie only because it involves a contractual matter. 26. In ABL International Ltd. (supra), this Court opined that on a given set of facts, if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, a writ petition would be maintainable. It was opined:- "It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent". 27. Contractual matters are, thus, not beyond the realm of judicial review. Its application may, however, be limited. " 16. 27. Contractual matters are, thus, not beyond the realm of judicial review. Its application may, however, be limited. " 16. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India (Supra) has held in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 as under:- "26. After holding so, this Court has concluded as under : (ABL International Ltd. Case, SCC p.580, para 53) "53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus if we apply the above principle of applicability of Article 14 to the facts of this case, then we notice that the first respondent being an instrumentality of the State and a monopoly body had to be approached by the appellants by compulsion to cover its export risk. The policy of insurance covering the risk of the appellants was issued by the first respondent after seeking all required information and after receiving huge sums of money as premium exceeding Rs. 16 lakhs. On facts we have found that the terms of the policy do not give room to any ambiguity as to the risk covered by the first respondent. We are also of the considered opinion that the liability of the first respondent under the policy arose when the default of the exporter occurred and thereafter when the Kazakhstan Government failed to fulfill its guarantee. There is no allegation that the contracts in question were obtained either by fraud or by misrepresentation. In such factual situation, we are of the opinion, the facts of this case do not and should not inhibit the High Court or this Court from granting the relief sought for by the petitioner." 27. In a recent decision in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation v. Indian Rocks, (2009) 1 SCC 150 , while considering the similar issue, S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the Bench reiterated thus:- "38. In a recent decision in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation v. Indian Rocks, (2009) 1 SCC 150 , while considering the similar issue, S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the Bench reiterated thus:- "38. Although ordinarily a superior court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that when an action of the State is arbitrary or discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable. (See ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.) 39. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal right in the writ petition and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the State, but then if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, the superior Courts are not powerless." 28. It is clear that, (a) in the contract if there is a clause for arbitration, normally, writ court should not invoke its jurisdiction; (b) the existence of effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226; and (c) if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India in its contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be maintainable. However, a legal right must exist and corresponding legal duty on the part of the State and if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, writ courts can exercise their power. In the light of the legal position, writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters, in the circumstances mentioned in the earlier paragraphs." 17. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, I would like to deal with the facts of the present case along with the conduct and lethargic approach of the Officers of the respondent Corporation. 18. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation is established under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 with an intention for providing lands/plots with basic infrastructure to interested person for establishing industrial units and grant the land on lease. 18. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation is established under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 with an intention for providing lands/plots with basic infrastructure to interested person for establishing industrial units and grant the land on lease. The Corporation consists of Directors nominated by the State Government, State Electricity Board, Gujarat Housing Board. The State Government appoints one of the Directors to be Chairman of the Corporation. Therefore, it is expected from the Corporation who employs highly qualified persons as their Managers that before dealing with the land, they must take proper and required care before accepting any amount from the person who had demanded the land. 19. Vibrant Gujarat Summit which is being organized by the State of Gujarat which is also known as Global Business Hub and Global Summit. Every year such Summit was organized on 12th and 13th of January. On 12.1.2011, MOU was entered into between Dhruv Pipeline Products Private Limited (old name of the petitioner Company) and the respondent Corporation pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 9.12.2010 by which the petitioner had demanded a plot admeasuring 50,000 Sq. Mtr. and necessary details were supplied. It is an undisputed fact that before the application was processed and offer-cum-allotment letter was issued on 31.3.2011, the petitioner had requested the Regional Manager of the concerned Branch within whose jurisdiction the land was situated about the change of the name of the petitioner and that too, annexing legal document i.e. certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. However, without taking note of it, offer-cum-allotment letter was issued on 31.3.2011 allotting only 2017.78 Sq. Mts. of land which is less than 5% of the demand made by the petitioner in the MOU entered into between the parties in the old name. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no reason for the petitioner to pay the amount demanded by the Corporation, otherwise the total value of the land was only Rs. 11,65,268/- which the petitioner could have easily paid. It is pertinent to note that repeated requests were made by the petitioner to issue fresh offer-cum-allotment letter in the new name and had shown readiness and willingness to pay the amount demanded by the Corporation by offer-cum-allotment letter dated 11.1.2012, however, the Officers of the respondent Corporation continued to neglect such request and continued the correspondence in the old name of the petitioner Company. Number of requests made by the petitioner had just returned unattended by the Officers of the respondent Corporation which establishes their arbitrary, indifferent and unreasonable approach. 20. Though the correspondence with regard to change of the name of the petitioner Company began in March 2011, only on 5.5.2012, the petitioner had been informed that his request to change the name is not considered by the respondent Corporation since the amount was not paid within stipulated time. Meanwhile, an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- was deposited by the petitioner on 23.3.2012 which was accepted by the respondent Corporation. It clearly appears from the letter dated 8.2.2012 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation wherein specific averment was made that allotment letter be issued in the new name of the petitioner Company so that he can avail the loan from the financial institutions. Relevant paragraph of the said letter dated 8.2.2012 is extracted below:- "Hence, we request you kindly re-issue the allotment letter in the name of Dhruv EPC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly, kindly extend the period of payment to GIDC. We can process the payments through our arrangements with financial institutions only after receipt of the allotment letter in the name of M/S. Dhruv EPC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. All our transactions with different financial institutions are in the same name. Once again we request your good selves to kindly let us have the allotment letter issued in the name of Dhruv EPC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to enable us to arrange the funds at the earliest possible time. We hereby request you to kindly extend the funds payment time to GIDC as we can make the payments in a reasonable time after re-issue of the allotment letter to us in the name of Dhruv EPC Solutions Pvt. Ltd." 21. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had issued Demand Draft from the Bank account of the petitioner Company itself which was accepted on 23.3.2012 by the respondent Corporation. However, on 5.5.2012, it was informed by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner that it is not possible to change the name of the petitioner since the amount was not paid within stipulated time. Since the petitioner was fed up with the conduct of the Officers of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner requested to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/-. However, on 5.5.2012, it was informed by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner that it is not possible to change the name of the petitioner since the amount was not paid within stipulated time. Since the petitioner was fed up with the conduct of the Officers of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner requested to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/-. However, vide letter dated 30.10.2012, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,40,29,968/- thereby deducted Rs. 35,07,492/- at no fault of it. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner rightly did not accept the said amount and continued to make representation for allotment. If the communications dated 30.3.2013 and 21.6.2013 are perused, which are sent by the respondent Corporation, it appears that the respondent Corporation is raising the price on each time. It is also pertinent to note that the correspondences between the parties suggest that the contract never ended and it remained alive. 22. It is an undisputed fact that though an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- was paid by the petitioner and accepted by the Corporation, the possession of the plot was never handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner was unable to use the said plot. Therefore, it can be said that the amount received by the Corporation was lying with it and/or must have circulated for other purposes. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent Corporation was not restrained by any order either by this Court or by other Court not to allot the disputed land to any other person. However, it is to be noted that the Corporation itself has not dealt with the plot since the litigation was pending before this Court, but the fact remains that the amount deposited by the petitioner on 23.3.2012 was lying with the Corporation. 23. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the reasons for non-payment of the petitioner and the action of the Officers of the respondent Corporation in not changing the name of the petitioner Company which resulted into not getting loan from the financial institutions, in my opinion, the petitioner was not at fault. 23. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the reasons for non-payment of the petitioner and the action of the Officers of the respondent Corporation in not changing the name of the petitioner Company which resulted into not getting loan from the financial institutions, in my opinion, the petitioner was not at fault. I am of the opinion that the Officers of the respondent Corporation have acted contrary to the public good and have acted unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably in dealing with a citizen who had deposited huge amount way back on 23.3.2012. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount is a reasonable one. However, the interest @ 13.50% asked for by the petitioner is on the higher side. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Corporation is not in the business of finance and, therefore, interest demanded by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 24. In the premises aforesaid, the present petition stands partly allowed. The respondent Corporation is hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1,75,37,460/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.10.2012 i.e. the date when the respondent for the first time offered some refund, till realization. The said amount shall be refunded by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 25. If the respondent Corporation fails to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 8% for the aforesaid period till the amount is paid to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.