ORDER : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents to allot adjacent Plot No. 343 and alternatively, direction to respondents to make payment of amount of security deposit along with interest deposited with the respondents at the time of moving an application. Facts leading to this petition are that, in order to set up industry of dyeing and printing house, the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in GIDC, Sachin Estate, Surat. On 5.6.1989, the respondents allotted plot Nos. 341 and 342 in this scheme to the petitioner. As the petitioner wanted to expand his activities, he further moved an application on 1.7.1990 for the allotment of plot No. 343 which was lying vacant. The petitioner also gave an undertaking as required by the respondents and paid Rs. 37,000/- towards the deposit amount. Though the petitioner moved all the objections and complied with the requirements, however, respondents denied allotment to the petitioner after inordinate delay of about 8 years solely on the ground that petitioner has failed to provide NOC of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and hence, the petition before this Court. 2. Learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 4.2.2010 directed the respondent- Corporation to refund the principal amount with the prevailing interest of the year 1996-1997 within a period of 1 month from the date of passing of the order. However, claim for allotment of adjacent plot by the petitioner was declined. 3. Against this order, petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal and while disposing of this Letters Patent Appeal on 29.2.2012, the Division Bench pointed out that in the impugned judgment, the Court has not gone into question whether NOC permission was prior requirement for allotment of Plot No. 343 and accordingly, remanded the case back to this Court for deciding afresh. This is how the matter has been put up before this Court for disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that immediately after allotment of plot Nos. 341 and 342, petitioner wanted to expand his business and for that purpose, he had moved an application along with demand draft for allotment of plot No. 343. According to him, petitioner wanted to use this plot for the storage purposes. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that immediately after allotment of plot Nos. 341 and 342, petitioner wanted to expand his business and for that purpose, he had moved an application along with demand draft for allotment of plot No. 343. According to him, petitioner wanted to use this plot for the storage purposes. Learned counsel has further argued that despite petitioner having cleared all the objections, the plot has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has not been able to produce NOC from GPCB and illegally forfeited the security amount deposited by the petitioner along with the application. According to him, the reasoning of the respondents to deny the adjacent plot to the petitioner on the ground of not providing NOC was baseless as NOC could not be provided for a vacant plot. It has been submitted that there was no such requirement under any rule or regulations to obtain permission or certificate from the GPCB for any such plot. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following decisions: (A) In the case of Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 388 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2364 (B) In the case of City Industrial Development Corporation vs. Platinum Entertainment and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 558 : AIR 2015 SC 340 5. On the other hand, counsel representing the Corporation argued with vehemence that requirement of NOC was a prerequisite for allotment of the plot. According to him, the petitioner and his son both have been provided NOC when they were allotted plot Nos. 341 and 342. As the said certificate has been provided prior to the installation of the electric connection meaning thereby that the NOC has been obtained by the petitioner even before starting of the production by them. Learned counsel has further referred to the affidavit in reply on behalf of the GPCB wherein, it has been stated that the respondents have visited the petitioner's premises at 342 GIDC Estate, Surat and it was found that the unit was totally closed and there was no machinery and from the prevailing conditions, it appeared that the unit has been closed down since a long time. Relevant report dated 11.5.2007 is also available at Annexure-B with this affidavit. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. Relevant report dated 11.5.2007 is also available at Annexure-B with this affidavit. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It will be relevant to point out that there is a policy of the State Government according to which, if adjacent plot to the plot held by an industrialist was lying vacant, the same could be allotted to him subject to completion of certain formalities. It appears that an application for allotment of this plot has been made immediately after the allotment of other two plots and even before installation of the electric connection of industrial plot No. 343 to the petitioner. The Respondent-authorities argued for production of NOC from GPCB. It is claim of the petitioner that such certificate was provided with in a stipulated period, however, the same has not been considered and plot in question has been allotted to a third party. 7. Arguments of learned counsel in this regard are without any basis. This Court has perused the NOC alleged to have been supplied by the petitioner. This NOC pertains to Plot Nos. 341 and 342 while no such NOC has been produced concerning the plot No. 343. It will be further relevant to point out that such NOC was a necessary prerequisite as the petitioner wanted expansion of his industry concerning dyeing and printing materials. Further, the arguments of the petitioner that such certificate was not prerequisite and the same cannot be obtained for a vacant plot are meaningless in view of the fact that regarding plot Nos. 341 and 342, electric connection has been released on a later date while NOC was there with the petitioner at an earlier date as the same has been produced by him. 8. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of the fact that as per policy, adjacent plots are allotted in order to expand the business. As argued by counsel for the respondents, the premises of plot No. 342 has been visited by the respondents on 11.5.2007 and it was found that no commercial activity was going on in this plot rather than plot was without any machinery and was totally closed. In view of this report, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of adjacent plot for expansion of business is totally false and is further an abuse to the policy of the GIDC. 9. In view of this report, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of adjacent plot for expansion of business is totally false and is further an abuse to the policy of the GIDC. 9. Learned counsel has also relied upon the cases of Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and also in the case of City Industrial Development Corporation vs. Platinum Entertainment (supra), the proposition of law in these judgments cannot be disputed but in view of the fact that the petitioner wants this plot for some other purpose rather than for expanding the business. These authorities may not be of any help in furthering his case. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.