ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.D. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short “GIDC”). 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged communications dated 03.05.2018 and 18.05.2018, by which, the respondent GIDC has observed that unless and until the petitioner pays an outstanding amount of Rs.1,33,74,143/- for regularizing the delay in payment of the balance amount in context of Plot No. 157-A at Khatodara, Surat, the petitioner’s case for allotment of the plot shall not be considered. 3. Facts in brief indicated that pursuant to an advertisement in the newspaper in the year 2000, industrial plots at Khatodara, Surat, were auctioned. An offer letter was issued to the petitioner on 30.03.2000 in response to his application / auction. The petitioner was informed that he could be allotted plot No. 157-A at Khatodara. The letter further indicated the procedure for obtaining allotment. This included making payment of Rs.9,08,695/-, being 30% of the total price of the plot which was Rs.30,28,983/- with frontage charges. The letter further stated that since the petitioner had already paid Rs.18,000/- as deposit after deduction of the amount, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.8,90,695/-. The balance amount of Rs.21,20,288/- will have to be paid in 32 quarterly installments spread over a period of eight years. For the initial period of two years, the petitioner was required to make payment of only interest on the balance of Rs.21,20,288 @ 18%. It is the case of the petitioner that he paid the amount of Rs.9,08,695/- and other charges on 31.03.2000 upon which the petitioner was allotted the plot vide appointment letter dated 31.03.2000. 3.1 It appears that a Civil Suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 2000 was filed by the Gujarat Industrial Cooperative Services Limited against the respondent – Corporation and the Surat Municipal Corporation in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat. The Suit was filed on the very date i.e. 31.03.2000. The prayers in the suit indicated that it was the case of the plaintiff that qua the survey Nos. The Suit was filed on the very date i.e. 31.03.2000. The prayers in the suit indicated that it was the case of the plaintiff that qua the survey Nos. 39/1 and 39/2 which had Final Plot No. 183, the respondent Corporation had no authority of law to divide it into further plots and that except the plaintiff, no other entity had entitlement to the allotment of such plot. 3.2 The Suit further was subsequently withdrawn on 14.03.2016 unconditionally. It appears that pendency of the suit made the petitioner apprehensive and the charges and further commitment to the allotment letter in terms of payments was not done by the petitioner as a result of which the Corporation issued the impugned communication demanding an amount of Rs.1,33,74,143/- for a period from 31.03.2002 to 31.03.2019. 4. Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to the pendency of the suit for 16 years, the petitioner did not make such payments due to the dispute with regard to the land in question at large before the Civil Court. He would submit that representations were made by the petitioner from time to time for accepting the amounts and allotting the plot to him. He would press into service one representation dated 03.10.2017 addressed to the respondent – Corporation, requesting the Corporation to accept the remaining amount that was initially due from the petitioner which was not paid as a result of the pendency of the suit and that be accepted now and the allotment be done. 5. Mr. R.D. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the GIDC, would rely on the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition and submit that the grievance can suitably be redressed by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, and a writ petition may not be entertained. He would further submit that after allotment of the plot in the year 2000, the petitioner had not utilized the plot for over a period of so many years and even after framing of One Time Settlement scheme vide Circular dated 27.10.2018, the petitioner had not availed of such a Scheme. He would also invite the Court’s attention to the Minutes of the Joint Meeting held on April 7, 2018, in the matter of regularization of allotments of several plots including that of the petitioner. He would also invite the Court’s attention to the Minutes of the Joint Meeting held on April 7, 2018, in the matter of regularization of allotments of several plots including that of the petitioner. Reading the Minutes of the Meeting, Mr. Dave, learned counsel, would submit that it was approved by the Committee that the regularization may be considered by collecting remaining installments as per the prevailing policy of the Corporation and the policy invoked was that of 07.10.2017, which indicated that for non use of the plot, possession can be regularized as payment of dues / penalty, tax etc. He would also submit that though the Suit was filed in the year 2000, it was only pursuant to an order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2001 that the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. Therefore, over eight years, undisputedly, there was no injunction to prevent the petitioner from making use of the plot. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, what is evident is that the petitioner was allotted the plot in question by an allotment letter dated 30.03.2000 which indicated the terms as set out hereinabove. The petitioner paid certain amounts as is evident from the communication of 31.03.2000. When the same is read together with the allotment letter it indicates that initially for a period of two years of allotment, the allottee will be required to make payment of only interest on the balance of Rs.21,20,288/- at the price inclusive of the frontage charges at the rate of 18%. After these two years period of moratorium is over, the balance amount of Rs.21,20,288/- would become payable in 32 quarterly installments spread over eight years with interest on reducing balance method. 6.1 Admittedly, the date of the letter of allotment and the date of the suit are co-terminus as is indicated from the copy of the plaint which was also filed on 31.03.2000. 6.1 Admittedly, the date of the letter of allotment and the date of the suit are co-terminus as is indicated from the copy of the plaint which was also filed on 31.03.2000. Even accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the injunction for the first time of maintaining status-quo was granted by the appellate Court on 03.12.2008, in accordance with the allotment letter, the petitioner who was entitled to a moratorium of two years and payment of the remaining amount in 32 quarterly installments spread over eight years with interest on reducing balance method, any investor with sound economic consideration would resist further investment in a property when a litigation is pending. The bonafides of the petitioner for not paying the remaining amounts as per the letter of allotment due to the pendency of the Suit therefore cannot be faulted and the entire fault therefore cannot be at the doors of the petitioner. 6.2 As far as the Minutes of the General Meeting held on 07.04.2018 which indicated that the regularization can be done only by clearing remaining installments is concerned, non utilization of plot due to the pendency of a suit could be a part of a sound business acumen as the allottee of the plot was facing a risk of a civil suit at the hands of a third party and would therefore not venture to make payments of the remaining amounts until the litigation is put to rest. The litigation, ultimately, rested inasmuch as, the suit was withdrawn on the basis of a pursis filed by the parties to the suit in the year 2016. 6.3 Admittedly, the allotment of the plot therefore was under a clout of litigation for over a period of 16 years. This could prima facie weigh in favour of the petitioner. However, what could also be not lost sight of the fact is that after the allotment, it was only for the first time in the year 2008 that an injunction order was passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo. 7. All these intervening circumstances need to be considered by the authorities admittedly when today the plot in question is in possession of the petitioner. 7. All these intervening circumstances need to be considered by the authorities admittedly when today the plot in question is in possession of the petitioner. On an application being made by the petitioner to consider these circumstances, i.e. pendency of the suit and its withdrawal after 16 years in the year 2016, the same shall be considered by the respondent – Corporation and a fresh decision shall be taken by the authorities for continuing the possession of the petitioner on the basis of the allotment letter on payment of requisite amounts in addition to the amounts which were initially liable for the petitioner to be paid in light of the allotment letter dated 30.03.2000 read with the letter dated 31.03.2000. 8. All these circumstances, including the pendency of the suit and the intervening factors be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law and a decision be taken. The petitioner shall make representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The same shall be considered within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.