Delay in approaching the court and lack of favorable orders in previous proceedings can bar a petitioner from challenging re-allotment orders.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned re-allotment order of the respondents 1 and 2 in Proceeding No.28967/DA1/87 dated 18.09.1987 and handing over proceedings in No. 28967/DA1/87 dated 30.09.1987, to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to allot the Plot A-1 to the original allottee i.e., the petitioner Firm M/s.Vijay Pharmaceuticals and also direct to approve the building and planning permission for the construction of factory building in Plot A-1, Industrial Estate, SIDCO, Hosur, Krishnagiri Distict.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned re-allotment order passed by the SIDCO in favour of the 3rd respondent and for a consequential direction to SIDCO to allot the subject property in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.B.Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.J.Melwin Jabaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the SIDCO allotted the subject plot in favour of the petitioner through provisional allotment order dated 29.08.1978. As per the allotment order, the petitioner has to complete the construction of the building and should commence the business within six months from taking possession of the plot. The petitioner was originally intending to put up a pharmaceutical unit in the plot. According to the petitioner, the amount that is due and payable by way of installments was also paid by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was not able to start the pharmaceutical unit and wanted to change the line of business to packaging and other allied products. The petitioner also made a representation in this regard to SIDCO.

5. Since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed in the provisional allotment order, the SIDCO initiated steps to cancel the allotment order and accordingly, it was also cancelled through proceedings dated 24.05.1984. The cancellation order became a subject matter of challenge before the Civil Court and it was pending before the District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri District in CMA No.14 of 1985. While the proceedings were pending, the SIDCO passed the impugned re-allotment order in favour of the 3rd respondent and the plot was also handed over in favour of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The SIDCO has filed a counter affidavit. They have taken a stand that the original allotment was cancelled and proceedings were initiated to take possession of the property and ultimately, the plot was resumed from the petitioner on 06.02.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the competent Court and the matter was pending in CMA No.14 of 1985 before the District Judge. It is further stated in the counter that the CMA was dismissed for default by an order dated 11.08.1987. It is only thereafter, steps were taken for re-allotment of the plot and the re-allotment was made in favour of the 3rd respondent. After the re-allotment, a Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the 3rd respondent on 21.09.1987 which was registered as Document No.4367 of 1987. The SIDCO has sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

7. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. They have taken a stand that after the re-allotment and the execution of the Sale Deed in their favour, they have been utilizing the plot for storing the manufactured goods. They have also taken a stand that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plot from the date on which the Sale Deed was executed in their favour in the year 1987. The 3rd respondent has questioned the enormous delay in the petitioner approaching this Court in the ye