JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to Order RC.No.1422/IE-2/95, dated 23.08.1996 issued by the respondent quash the same and direct the respondent to hand over plot in DP.No.155-A, Thirumazhisai Village or any other equivalent plot in favour of the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner herein filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 23.08.1996, cancelling the allotment of developed plot No. DP.No.155-A in industrial estate, Thirumazhisai to the petitioner. 2. According to the writ petitioner, the predecessor of the petitioner namely Dhanplast Company was allotted a developed plot in industrial estate Thirumazhisai. The said predecessor company was later renamed as “Technopac Transworld” which was part of “VVD” group of companies and finally as Ecoclean Adsorbent Carbons Private Limited, the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, he had requested the respondent to furnish the site plan but the same was not furnished till date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further averred that instead of furnishing him with copy of site plan the respondent abruptly cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner's predecessor by the impugned order dated 28.08.1996. The order is challenged by the writ petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent had suppressed the fact that the plot No. DP.No.155-A which was allotted in favour of the petitioner's predecessor was originally reserved for common purpose in the sanctioned layout and the respondent had allotted the same in favour of the petitioner by inadvertence. It was further submitted that the petitioner was all along ready to commence industrial activity, but it was the respondent who failed to furnish the site plan and ultimately the impugned order of cancellation of allotment was made stating that the petitioner had not shown any interest in taking possession of the developed block and getting the building approval etc. 4. In nutshell, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasoning given by the respondent for cancelling the plot allotted to petitioner's predecessor is not correct and hence the order is liable to be set aside. 5. The respondent filed a detailed counter and resisted the writ petition. 4. In nutshell, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasoning given by the respondent for cancelling the plot allotted to petitioner's predecessor is not correct and hence the order is liable to be set aside. 5. The respondent filed a detailed counter and resisted the writ petition. The first objection of the respondent would be that the writ petitioner earlier filed a similar writ petition challenging the impugned order in W.P.No.6999 of 1998 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission. Thereafter, the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the State Consumer Commission in O.P.No.166 of 1998 was dismissed by order dated 31.01.2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the National Consumer Commission and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this second writ petition, challenging the very same order, after a lapse of 15 years. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that having withdrawn the earlier writ petition with the liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission, it is not open to the writ petitioner to maintain the second writ petition that too after a lapse of 15 years. 7. In nutshell, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of laches, but also on the point of res judicata and re-litigation. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that plot No.DP.No.155- A allotted to M/s. Dhanplast Company a Partnership Firm. As per the allotment order any change in management must be approved by the respondent but in the present case, the change of management was not approved by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out how the original plot allotted to the petitioner's predecessor was changed number of times at the request made by the petitioner. It was also submitted that after cancellation of the allotment to the predecessor of the petitioner, plot No. DP.No.155-A was allotted to a 3rd party and the 3rd party also commenced his business. It was also submitted that after cancellation of the allotment to the predecessor of the petitioner, plot No. DP.No.155-A was allotted to a 3rd party and the 3rd party also commenced his business. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that as per order passed by State Consumer Commission, respondent sent the amount ordered to be paid to the petitioner by cheque and the same was not received by petitioner. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Even as per the admitted case of the petitioner, the impugned order was challenged by the petitioner earlier in writ petition No.6999 of 1998 and the same was dismissed on 16.03.2000 with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission. The writ petitioner having withdrawn the earlier writ petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission filed a petition before the State Consumer Commission in O.P.No.166 of 1998, wherein, he attacked the impugned order as illegal the relevant averments of the writ petitioner in Paragraph 6(A) of the complaint is extracted below. 6(A) The complainant has withdrawn the abovesaid writ petition (W.P.No.6699 of 1998) on 16.03.2000 with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy. It is submitted that the cancellation of allotment is clearly illegal. No notice or hearing was granted to the complainant before cancellation of allotment. No proper and adequate reasons have been furnished for cancelling of the allotment. The entire amount towards sale price of the allotted plot has been paid to the opposite party in 1994 itself and the same has not been refunded till date. The opposite party has all along been promising to furnish the site plan and to hand over possession of the allotted plot but has not done so. The opposite party and their subordinate officials have been promising to revoke the cancellation order stating that it was done by oversight, but have failed to take proper steps in this regard. 9. Before the State Consumer Commission, the petitioner sought for the relief of direction to the respondent to hand over the possession of plot No. DP.No.155-A apart from the claim for compensation. The learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by order dated 31.01.2008, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for possession of the plot. 9. Before the State Consumer Commission, the petitioner sought for the relief of direction to the respondent to hand over the possession of plot No. DP.No.155-A apart from the claim for compensation. The learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by order dated 31.01.2008, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for possession of the plot. However, the respondent was directed to re-pay the amount already paid by the petitioner Rs.5,84,400/- together with 9% interest from the date of payment to till date of realization. The State Consumer Commission in its order observed as follows: “It would appear that the complaint had not been serious about starting the industry. They had been repeatedly seeking change of name, change of plot, transfer of allotment etc., and when the opposite party tried to find out whether the complainant were keen to start an industry thereby calling upon the complainant to produce various documents as per condition No.3 namely building plan for proposed construction, copy of S.S.I, certificate, financial tie-up for construction of building. The complainant did not produce those documents before the opposite party nor before the review committee. In such circumstances, in our view the opposite party was justified in concluding that the complainant was not interested in starting any manufacturing industry in the allotted plot and was taken keen to only to retain the plot. When the condition imposed by the opposite party had not been satisfied by the complainant, the complainant could not have reason to find fault with the opposite party merely on the ground that no site plan had been provided to the complainant by the opposite party.” 10. Thus the State Consumer Commission already found that the reasoning given by the respondent in its order that the petitioner was not interested to start any manufacturing industries in the allotted plot was correct. 11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitioner's prayer for possession, the petitioner filed an appeal before the National Consumer Commission and the same was dismissed mainly on the ground that the present petitioner has no locus standi to step into the shoes of its predecessor namely “Dhanplast Company”. The National Consumer Commission also observed that the appeal filed by the petitioner was out of time and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation also. The National Consumer Commission also observed that the appeal filed by the petitioner was out of time and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation also. While dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and also locus of the petitioner, the National Consumer Commission observed that it was open to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum . Based on the said observations, the writ petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 12. The perusal of the order passed by the State Consumer Commission makes it clear that the petitioner's prayer for possession of the plot was dismissed by giving a positive finding that the respondent was justified in cancelling the allotment on the ground that the petitioner was not interested in commencing the industrial activity in the allotted plot. The said finding has become final. Further the impugned order was challenged by the writ petitioner earlier in W.P.No.6999 of 1998 and the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to pursue other legal remedies. The petitioner in its wisdom pursued the other legal remedies and failed. Thereafter, it is not open to the writ petitioner to file second writ petition, challenging the order that too after a period of 15 years. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is specifically mentioned that after cancellation of the order, the plot in question was allotted to a 3rd party, who also commenced his business. 13. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and also subsequent events that had taken place (i.e., allotment of plot to 3rd party), this Court is not inclined to exercise it's equitable jurisdiction in favour of petitioner. The liberty given to the writ petitioner in earlier writ petition to pursue other remedies, cannot be interpreted as a license to challenge very same impugned order after 15 years, that too after suffering an adverse order in the other forum. 14. In view of the discussions made above the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.