JUDGMENT : 1. Heard both the counsel. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed in W.P.No.65060/2012 dated 13.10.2015 rejecting the writ petition of the appellants herein. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, a person by name Abdulsalam Sultansab Attar who is none other than the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, made an application for grant of lease-cum-allotment of an industrial plot for the purpose of establishing a factory in the name and style of M/s Mehar Agro Processing and Food Exports. After due consideration of the said representation, the parties have entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement on 26.06.2008 for a period of eleven years, with a rider that the said lessee has to construct a building for the purpose of establishing the said unit and start the production in the unit within 24 months from the date of said lease. Unfortunately, the said Abdulsalam Sultansab Attar after the said lease agreement died on 02.11.2008 within the said stipulated period of 24 months. Ofcourse, from the date of death of the said person, the appellants ought to have made an application for continuation of the said lease in their name within three months from the date of death of the said person, but they have made such a representation through their power of attorney holder on 10.08.2010 after lapse of more than two years. Considering the said representation made by the power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of original lessee, the respondents have refused to transfer the said lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of legal representatives of the original lessee on the ground that the conditions of the said lease deed was violated and that their application was belated and as well the power of attorney holder cannot claim such relief. 4. The learned single Judge has taken the view that Clause-13 of the lease agreement stipulates a specific time which is mandatory in nature to file an application for transfer of the title of the lease in the name of the legal representatives of the deceased (original lessee) within three months. The other clauses also show that if the stipulated conditions have not been properly complied, it automatically determines the lease and consequent termination of the lease. The other clauses also show that if the stipulated conditions have not been properly complied, it automatically determines the lease and consequent termination of the lease. Nevertheless, the discretion was still left with the respondents either to extend the time to the legal representatives of the lessee by continuing the lease even after three months. But as they found that the legal representatives have not informed the respondents to enter the names of the legal representatives as the title holder of the lease and thereafter executed the power of attorney for the purpose of seeking conferring of the rights arising out of the lease deed and further application was highly belated. Though we do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, but we are of the opinion that if an opportunity is given to the appellants to make fresh application for grant of lease as it is the submission at the time of argument that the said leasehold property was not yet allotted to any third person hitherto. Therefore, the appellants herein can make necessary application if they really intend to continue and establish the said factory or the unit in the said plot and to run the unit. In such an eventuality if they are otherwise entitled for fresh lease, they can make an application to the respondents. The respondents, after taking into consideration that the lease was allotted to the original lessee and also untimely death of the lessee and other factors, shall ascertain whether the appellants are entitled for a fresh lease in their favour, if their intention to start the factory is genuine. 5. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, we are of the opinion that though the writ appeal has to fail on merits of the case but liberty is to be given to the appellants as noted above. 6. With the above said observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge is not disturbed. However, an opportunity is given to the appellants herein to make fresh representation for grant of lease of the said plot into their names afresh, for the grounds to be noted in their application, the appellants shall comply with all other necessary legal requirements. The order passed by the learned single Judge is not disturbed. However, an opportunity is given to the appellants herein to make fresh representation for grant of lease of the said plot into their names afresh, for the grounds to be noted in their application, the appellants shall comply with all other necessary legal requirements. If such an application is filed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law within three months thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till that point of time, the respondents are hereby directed not to allot the said plot to any other person. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.