M.M. Kumar, J.:- The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 22.3.2006 (P-12) passed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (HSIDC)-respondent No. 3, resuming Industrial Plot No. 30, Phase 3, G.C. Bawal. A further prayer for quashing order dated 13.2.2007 C.W.P. No. 12981 of 2007 (P-13) has been made whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the resumption order has been rejected. Still further it has been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to restore the aforementioned industrial plot in favour of the petitioner and also to issue letter of intent for implementation of the industrial project.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the application dated 27.5.1999 (P-1) made by the petitioner, industrial Plot No. 30, Phase 3, G.C. Bawal, measuring 250 Sq. Mtrs. was allotted vide Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 9.9.1999 (P-4). As per clause 4(i) of the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 9.9.1999, Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) was to be issued after fulfilling following formalities within a period of six months from the issue of LOI:-

? Obtain provisional registration certificate of the Unit from the concerned GM, DIC in case of SSI units and Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) from the SIA, Union Ministry of Industries in case of Medium and Large units.

? Approval of the Building Plans.

? Sanction of loan from the Bank/Financial Institution. If self-financed, proof of resources.

3. In clause 5 of the LOI, schedule of payment of balance 75% of the price of the plot was given, which was to be paid in three equated instalment of Rs. 37,5000/- within a period of 9 months to be counted from the date of expiry of 30 days of the issue of LOI. The first, second and third instalments were due on 9.1.2000, 9.4.2000 and 9.7.2000. Interest @ 18% was chargeable on the defaulted amount for the defaulted period for delay in payment from the due date. It has been further postulated that interest @ 18% would be charged on the balance amount from the date of offer of possession and a penal interest @ 3% over and above 18% would be levied and applied @ 21% on the defaulted amount for the defaulted period for delay in payment after the offer of possession. However, the allottee could pay the balance 75% amount in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issue of LOI.

4. The petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as 10% of the earnest money alongwith the application and further deposited another sum of Rs. 22,500/- towards 15% cost of the plot. The plot was allotted for setting up the project of Die Casted Accessories, Engineering Components of Auto Parts etc. On 8.10.1999, an agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the HSIDC (P-5). On 5.3.2001 and 9.3.2001, the petitioner further deposited a sum of Rs. 49,000/- each, total of which comes to Rs. 98,000/-. In this manner, the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs. 1,35,500/-. Thereafter the petitioner shifted to a new address as he got a job. It is claimed that the changed address of correspondence as well as e-mail address was intimated to the HSIDC.

5. On the ground that the petitioner failed to complete the formalities stipulated under clause 4 of the LOI and also defaulted in payments of installments towards cost of the plot, a show cause notice dated 28.3.2005 (P-7) was sent on the e-mail address of the petitioner. It was also mentioned that after adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner against principal and interest on delayed payment a sum of Rs. 23,593/- was found due as on 15.7.2002. In that regard a communication was also sent on 12.7.2002 asking him to deposit Rs. 23,593/- alongwith interest chargeable from time to time w.e.f. 16.7.2002 till date of payment. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the plot in question be not resumed.

6. On 1.7.2005, the petitioner sent a reply taking the stand that