Sangeet Lodha, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner The Small Industries Development Bank of India ('the Corporation'), has questioned legality of order dated 3.6.15 issued by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO), Abu Road, whereby the plot allotted in favour of the third respondent Neesa Agritech and Foods Ltd. in Industrial Area Growth Centre, Second Phase, Abu Road, has been cancelled and the lease deed executed stands determined. That apart, the petitioner has also challenged action of the RIICO in refunding the amount of development charges a sum of Rs.18,15,271/- to the third respondent.

2. The relevant facts are that on being selected in draw of lot, the third respondent was allotted a plot measuring 10,000 sq. meter at Industrial Area Growth Centre, Abu Road for establishing a food industry vide allotment letter dated 21.4.10, issued by the Senior Regional Manager, RIICO, on the terms and conditions specified. On depositing the development charges quantified at Rs.25,00,000/-, the possession of the plot was handed over by RIICO to the third respondent and lease deed was executed between the parties on 31.3.11.

3. The petitioner Corporation sanctioned/disbursed various credit facilities to Neesa Group of Companies which includes the third respondent. To secure the loan, the petitioner Corporation had taken certain properties as primary securities and collateral securities. The plot no.B-2, Industrial Area Growth Centre, Phase II, Abu Road, allotted by RIICO in favour of the third respondent as aforesaid, was taken by the petitioner Corporation as collateral security and for this purpose, no objection certificate was obtained from RIICO.

4. The third respondent failed to set up the industry within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore, since the third respondent was financed by the petitioner Corporation, as per clause 3(a) of the lease agreement, the RIICO issued a notice dated 25.11.14 to the petitioner Corporation in terms that the breach may be remedied within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of the notice, failing which RIICO will have to cancel/re-enter the plot, building and erections standing on the demised premises and all materials thereof shall vests in RIICO. The petitioner Corporation in its turn advised the third respondent to remedy the breach within a period of 90 days. The third respondent was warned by the petitioner Corporation that on failure to remedy the breach within the said period, it would be construed that the company and its promoters do not intend to regularise the observation and in that case, the petitioner Corporation will have no other option but to initiate proceedings both civil and criminal against the company and its promoters.

5. The third respondent failed to set up the industry within the stipulated period and therefore, the RIICO vide communication dated 3.6.15 proceeded to determine the lease and directed the third respondent to hand over the possession.

6. On account of failure of the third respondent in repayment of the loan, the petitioner Corporation served the third respondent with a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act").

7. Vide communication dated 8.9.15, the petitioner Corporation requested the RIICO not to take any adverse action against the property in question, which was followed by the communication dated 2.11.15 and 1.3.16.

8. Vide communication dated 21.4.16, the RIICO informed the petitioner Corporation that the allotment of the plot in question has already been cancelled vide order dated 3.6.15 and in view of condition mentioned in NOC dated 25.4.11, RIICO was fully justified in taking action against the allottee, the third respondent herein. It was further clarified that since lease agreement stands determined, the origi