JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and Ms. M. Iswarya, Advocate, representing Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 is filed in WP No. 7331 of 2003 dismissed vide judgment, dated 21.06.2013. 3. The writ petitioner, in the Writ Petition No. 7331 of 2003, is the review petitioner. 4. 10.00 Acres of land at IDA Aganampudi, was allotted to the petitioner-M/s. Coastal Carbons Limited, by the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited ['APIICL'], for setting up of a Low Ash Metallurgical Coke on Outright Sale Basis ['ORS']. A Sale Agreement for sale, dated 24.11.1998, was executed and the possession of the allotted land was handed over to the review petitioner. The Sale Agreement was cancelled vide Proceedings No. 1113/CLL/IDA/DGPD/ZO/VSP/94, dated 31.03.2003, for violating the terms and conditions of the sale agreement by not implementing the project within the stipulated time duly utilizing the purpose for which it was allotted. The amount deposited by the petitioner was also forfeited. 5. Challenging the order of cancellation, dated 31.03.2003, the petitioner filed WP No. 7331 of 2003 which was dismissed on 21.06.2013. 6. One WP No. 7332 of 2003 was filed by a different petitioner M/s. ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd., against the cancellation of allotment vide letter, dated 31.03.2003, also forfeiting the amounts paid by that petitioner. The WP No. 7332 of 2003 was dismissed vide judgment, dated 30.11.2012. 7. The order dated 31.03.2003, as challenged in present WP No. 7331 of 2003, was identical to the order dated 31.03.2003 as challenged in WP No. 7332 of 2003. 8. The present writ petition was also dismissed. 9. The petitioner filed WA No. 983 of 2014, which was dismissed as being 'withdrawn', however, with liberty granted to the petitioner/appellant to proceed in accordance with law, as may be advised, vide order, dated 01.07.2014. 10. Thereafter, the Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 was filed. 11. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner is that, the 1st respondent Corporation issued a Circular No. 352/DW/2007, dated 17.01.2007, and pursuant thereto the petitioner filed an application, dated 23.03.2007, to the Zonal Manager, APIICL, Visakhapatnam. 10. Thereafter, the Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 was filed. 11. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner is that, the 1st respondent Corporation issued a Circular No. 352/DW/2007, dated 17.01.2007, and pursuant thereto the petitioner filed an application, dated 23.03.2007, to the Zonal Manager, APIICL, Visakhapatnam. Referring to Clause-IX, it was submitted that by the said Circular, a scheme, valid upto 31.03.2007, was introduced, allowing the land occupiers, who had not started their industry, to pay an amount of penalty and start the activities to put up the plant. 12. He submitted that the aforesaid Circular and the application were misplaced in the Office of the review petitioner and as such could not be filed in the writ petition, though these were necessary material. He submitted that, the petitioner discovered those material which could not be produced even after exercise of due diligence. Consequently, in his submission, the judgment deserves to be reviewed in view of Order XLVTI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ['C.P.C.'] which provides for 'review', inter alia, on the discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced at the time the order/decree was passed. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Circular, dated 17.01.2007, was within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed representation, dated 23.03.2007. So, it is not a case of discovery of a new matter. She further submitted that, in view of Clause (X) of the Circular, dated 17.01.2007, it is also not an important or material fact, as in the petitioner's case, there is no sale deed, but only the 'Sale Agreement', to which scheme under circular does not apply. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 15. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the judgment, dated 21.06.2013, is liable to be reviewed? 16. It is evident from a reading of the order under review dated 21.06.2013 that the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the issue involved, was squarely covered by the judgment in WP No. 7332 of 2003, ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd., rep. by its Director K. Venkat Phani v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited rep. 16. It is evident from a reading of the order under review dated 21.06.2013 that the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the issue involved, was squarely covered by the judgment in WP No. 7332 of 2003, ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd., rep. by its Director K. Venkat Phani v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited rep. by its Deputy Zonal Manager (D) and others, 2013 (2) ALD 466 : 2013 (1) ALT 634 . 17. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner did not dispute that the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment, dated 30.11.2012, passed in WP No. 7332 of 2003. 18. It is further evident that the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner requested for passing the same order as was passed in WP No. 7332 of 2003. 19. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner also did not dispute that the judgment was passed on the request of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. 20. Now the Court proceeds to consider the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner. 21. The Circular is dated 17.01.2007. The petitioner applied on 23.03.2007. The writ petition was decided on 21.06.2013. As such, the petitioner had the knowledge of the Circular. The representation, dated 23.03.2007, is the petitioner's own document. The petitioner has stated that those documents were misplaced in the Office of the petitioner and could not be produced in the writ petition. The Court finds that, the date of alleged discovery has not been disclosed nor as to what due diligence was exercised for production of those documents. The plea of misplacement and then discovery does not inspire confidence. The due diligence could not be established. Such a plea, under the circumstances does not furnish a ground for review. 22. Additionally, even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner be accepted, for proceeding further, for the reasons to follow in the following paragraphs, this Court finds that the Circular, dated 17.01.2007, is not relevant and not of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment under review. 23. The Circular, dated 17.01.2007, is reproduced as under: "Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited Regd. Off : 6th Floor, 5-9-58/B, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004. 23. The Circular, dated 17.01.2007, is reproduced as under: "Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited Regd. Off : 6th Floor, 5-9-58/B, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004. (for internal Circulation only) Circular No. 352/DW/2007 dated 17.01.2007 Sub : Enforcement of conditions of allotment for implementation of projects by the allottees in the industrial parks-Certain guidelines-Issued. Ref : 1. Circular IOM No. 338/DW/D-5/2005, dated 29.06.2006 of VC&MD, APIIC. 2. Minutes of the 165th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 18.12.2006. ................. 1. APIIC has been developing Industrial Parks in Andhra Pradesh and the plots/sheds in the Industrial Parks are earmarked for industrial use and for no other purpose in accordance with the sanctioned master plan/zonal development plan and sanctioned layout plan of the Industrial Park. APIIC has been striving to facilitate development of Industries in Andhra Pradesh to subserve socio economic progress of the State. The Industrial Parks are developed spending huge amounts providing with infrastructural facilities for industrial use. Believing the applications together with Project reports submitted by the applicants/entrepreneurs as bona fide and reposing confidence in them, Corporation allotted Plots/sheds to entrepreneurs for industrial purposes. The Corporation further executed sale deeds in favour to the allottees without insisting for setting up of the proposed industries first, with a view to help them in availing loans speedily from Banks/financial institutions for setting up of industries in the plots/sheds allotted to them. 2. It was found that number of allottees of plots/sheds in the Industrial Parks have been retaining the same idle without utilizing the same for the purpose (industrial) for which the same were allotted by APIIC. Consequently the public purpose in development of Industrial Parks by APIIC got defeated and further the genuine entrepreneurs are not able to get plot/shed in the Industrial Parks. As such, it is just and necessary to enforce the conditions of allotment against the allottees. Accordingly APIIC initiated steps and cancelled allotment of plots/sheds which remained unutilized duly granting prior opportunity to the allottees to explain their case. 3. The issue of ensuring implementation of projects by the allottees was discussed in Zonal conferences. It was suggested that the defaulters may be granted another opportunity duly condoning the delay in utilization of the plots/sheds. Several representations were received by APIIC requesting for restoration of allotments so as to utilize the plots/sheds for industrial use. 3. The issue of ensuring implementation of projects by the allottees was discussed in Zonal conferences. It was suggested that the defaulters may be granted another opportunity duly condoning the delay in utilization of the plots/sheds. Several representations were received by APIIC requesting for restoration of allotments so as to utilize the plots/sheds for industrial use. The matter has been placed before the Boards of Directors in their meeting held on 18.12.2006. The Board considered the matter and approved a scheme to condone the delay in implementation of the projects by the allottees subject to certain conditions including payment of delay condonation fee by the applications. Pursuant to the same, the following guidelines are issued in the matter. (i) The requests for withdrawal of cancellation orders received from the allottees may be examined provided he/they agrees to undertake commencement of construction of factory buildings in the plots/lands duly obtaining permission from the competent authorities including the Commissioner/Executive Officer, APIIC-IALA and pays the delay condonation fee etc., to APIIC as prescribed hereunder. An undertaking duly executed by the allottee and signed before Notary Public is required to be submitted by the allottee to APIIC. A specimen undertaking to be submitted is enclosed herewith. (ii) After receipt of the application alongwith undertaking duly signed before the Notary Public, the Zonal Manager concerned should inspect the premises in question to find out about the status of the premises i.e., physical features, whether the premises are clean, vacant or there are structures, if any etc., After satisfying that the plot/land is not sub-divided, and after receipt of the amounts towards delay condonation fee, property tax, mutation fee, or other dues, the Zonal Manager concerned may issue orders for keeping the cancellation orders (already issued and which are in force) in abeyance and to defer the action for eviction of the allottee from the premises duly granting time for commencement of construction of buildings, completion of the buildings and for going into commercial production by the unit in a time schedule for implementing the project (to be stipulated depending upon the proposed unit). The status/physical features of the plot as on the date of issue of the orders should be indicated in the orders to be issued by the Zonal Manager concerned. The status/physical features of the plot as on the date of issue of the orders should be indicated in the orders to be issued by the Zonal Manager concerned. (iii) It may please be noted that the allotment would be restored duly revoking the cancellation orders only after the applicant complies with the conditions stipulated i.e., implementation of the project within the time frame stipulated. (iv) Delay Condonation Fee Payable by the applicant. (a) For Autonagers : At 2% on the prevailing land cost for the entire extent of the plot as on the date of issue of orders on the applicant (b) For Industrial Parks : S.no. Criteria The Percentage on the prevailing land cost for the entire extent of the plot as on the date of issue of orders on the request of the applicant. 1. Possession of plot given on or after 01.01.2003 5 % 2. Possession of plot given between 01.01.2000 and 31.12.2002 10% 3. Possession of plot given between 01-01-1997 and 31-12-1999 20% 4. Possession of plot given prior to 01-01-1997 50 % (v) All the dues including the delay condonation fee should be paid in lumpsum positively by 31.03.2007 to APIIC. (vi) Maximum Time Limit that may be Prescribed Depending Upon the type of Unit. Auto Nagar Industrial Parks Maximum Time that can be given Maximum Time that can be given For commencement of construction works Upto 31-07-2007 Upto 31-07-2007 For completion of the works and implementation of the project including going into commercial production Upto 31-07-2008 Upto 31-07-2009 (vii) Suitable time frame may be stipulated taking into account the line of activity of the unit. (viii) The present scheme of granting time for implementation of the projects is not applicable in respect of the allotments made for support service/commercial activities including residential plots in the area earmarked for common facilities. (ix) In regard to the allottees who filed suits/WPs. etc., challenging the cancellation orders, the proposals should be sent to Head Office for considering the requests after the suits/WPs. are withdrawn by the parties. (x) In regard to the cases where sale deeds were not executed and allotments were cancelled for non-utilisation, the present scheme of granting time for implementation is not applicable and those cases have to be considered following the Allotment Regulations in vogue. are withdrawn by the parties. (x) In regard to the cases where sale deeds were not executed and allotments were cancelled for non-utilisation, the present scheme of granting time for implementation is not applicable and those cases have to be considered following the Allotment Regulations in vogue. (xi) Please note that enforcement of the conditions of allotment for implementation of the projects is a continuous process and the Zonal Managers should follow up the cases promptly and effectively. (xii) The guidelines now issued are only indicative, in nature. In case of any doubt, the matter should be referred to HO, immediately for advice/clarification. (xiii) The applications received should be considered expeditiously and judiciously without giving room for discrimination. The receipt of the circular should be acknowledged by return of Post. Sd/- Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Encl : Specimen undertaking. 24. It is evident that, as per Clause 3(x) of the Circular, in regard to the cases where sale deeds were not executed and allotment were cancelled for non-utilization, the Scheme vide the said Circular, is not applicable. 25. Admittedly, the 'sale deed' was not executed in petitioner's favour. Only, there was 'sale agreement'. 26. Consequently on the face of the Circular, it cannot be a discovery of an important matter i.e., important to the issue involved in the writ petition. 27. In State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, 2008:INSC:759 : (2008) 8 SCC 612 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. 28. It is apt to refer Paragraph No. 21 of State of West Bengal's case (supra), as under "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier." 29. The order, dated 21.06.2013, passed in WP No. 7331 of 2003, does not suffer from any apparent error of law or of jurisdiction. No case for review is made out. 30. The Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 is dismissed, 31. No order as to costs. 32. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.