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 of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein in R.C.No.5136/1E-2/2008, dated 10.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to give all assistance to the petitioner for promoting the Small Scale Industrial Unit.) 1. The petitioner herein has come up with this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 10.04.2015 canceling allotment of Plot No.S-86 measuring an extent of 8.53 cents in Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, in favour of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to commence construction of the building and utilize the plot within 2 years from the date of allotment. 2. The petitioner was allotted with the above said plot of Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, on 23.10.2008. The petitioner paid the entire cost of the plot as per the allotment order. As per clause-VI of the allotment order, the construction of industrial building on the plot shall be commenced within six months from the date of taking possession of the plot after obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the respondent and approval of local bodies and other authorities concerned and the construction shall be completed within eighteen months from the date of allotment. If the said condition is not fulfilled by the allottee/petitioner, the respondent is at liberty to cancel the allotment. In the case on hand, the petitioner failed to commence construction and utilize the plot, as per the time schedule and hence a show cause notice was issued by second respondent on 02.09.2013 directing the petitioner to furnish actual reason for non-commencement of construction as per the allotment condition. On 24.09.2013, the petitioner submitted a reply wherein, he had stated that due to financial reasons, the petitioner was unable to start construction in the allotted plot and requested the respondents to grant the petitioner, 6 to 12 months time for commencing their business in the allotted plot. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared to have filed necessary plan and other documents seeking, “No Objection Certificate” from the respondent and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur District, in his letter dated 25.09.2013 forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Health Services Tiruvallur and the Divisional Fire Officer, Tiruvallur, seeking their clearance. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared to have filed necessary plan and other documents seeking, “No Objection Certificate” from the respondent and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur District, in his letter dated 25.09.2013 forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Health Services Tiruvallur and the Divisional Fire Officer, Tiruvallur, seeking their clearance. Subsequently, on 10.02.2015, the respondent again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to furnish proof of utilization commencement of Industrial Production in the allotted plot within 10 days and in the said communication, it was made clear by the respondent that in case of failure of the petitioner to give satisfactorily reply along with proof of utilization, the allotment would be cancelled. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply to the respondent on 16.03.2015, stating that he already approached the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur for getting local body clearance/plan approval under single window clearance, to enable him to start the production activities. The copy of the letter of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur Industrial Estate, dated 25.09.2013 was also annexed with the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that though in the said letter it was mentioned that the clearance should be given within a prescribed period of four weeks, the petitioner had not received required clearance even after 1 ½ years. The petitioner further assured within 60 days from the date of receiving required clearance from the local body and other authorities the construction activity would be started. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the respondent on 10.04.2015, cancelling the allotment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice of the respondent on 16.03.2015 itself, stating that the building plan and other connected documents were submitted for the clearance of concerned authorities with the recommendation letter of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur Industrial Estate. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent in the impugned order. The respondent after issuance of show cause notice ought not to have passed the impugned order without considering explanation submitted by the petitioner. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent in the impugned order. The respondent after issuance of show cause notice ought not to have passed the impugned order without considering explanation submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent failed to provide necessary infrastructure in the industrial estate like sewage connection, water connection in the proper road. Therefore, the delay in commencing construction is also attributable to the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that similar writ petitions filed by other allottees in respect of the very same industrial estate, Kakkalur, were allowed by this Court in W.P.No.11841 of 2015 batch by order dated 22.03.2016, wherein, this Court has given a finding that the delay in utilization of the plot which were allotted to the respective allottees was attributed to the inaction on the part of the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Clause 6 and 7 of the allotment order, the construction of the industrial building should commence within six months from the date of taking possession and it should be completed within eighteen months from the date of allotment. The petitioner was allotted with Plot No.S-86 on 23.10.2008 and he had taken possession of the plot in the year 2010 itself, but failed to commence construction. 6. Relying on his counter, the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that SIDCO had completed the developmental work like roads, drainage, sewerage, street lights etc, even during the year 2011 and there are totally 200 units running in industrial estate and they have been enjoying the infrastructure facilities. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and also perused the pleadings of parties and typed set of papers. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent failed to provide with necessary infrastructure cannot be considered at this stage because of the reason in his reply to the first show cause notice dated 02.09.2013 and second show cause notice dated 10.02.2015, the petitioner had not raised the question of lack of infrastructure facilities as a reason for the delay in commencement of construction. In his reply to the first notice, which was submitted on 24.09.2013, the petitioner only cited his financial condition for his failure to commence production within time schedule and prayed for 6 to 12 months time. In his reply to the first notice, which was submitted on 24.09.2013, the petitioner only cited his financial condition for his failure to commence production within time schedule and prayed for 6 to 12 months time. In his explanation to the second show cause notice, which was submitted on 16.03.2015, the petitioner again failed to raise the issue of lack of infrastructure facilities in the Industrial Estate. But he only stated that already he submitted building plan and other document and the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Kakkalur Industrial Estate, forwarded the same to Deputy Director of Health Services, Tiruvallur and Divisional Fire Officer, Tiruvallur for scrutiny and clearance and inspite of prescribed time limit of four weeks, the petitioner had not received any response from the concerned authorities even after 1 ½ years. Therefore, in his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner had not raised the issue of lack of infrastructure facilities, but only said that he already submitted necessary papers and there was some delay in getting clearance from the appropriate authority, notwithstanding the time limit of four weeks prescribed. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner, with regard to the failure of the respondent to provide necessary infrastructure in the Industrial Estate is rejected. However, the reason given by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, was not at all considered by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. The reading of impugned order, makes it clear that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered while passing order of cancellation. It is not the case of the respondent that the delay in getting clearance for commencement of construction is due to the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed without considering the letter of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kakkalur Industrial Estate, dated 25.09.2013, which was enclosed along with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in his letter dated 16.03.2015 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for evicting the petitioner. 8. Till such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for evicting the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent to pass fresh orders as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.