ORDER :

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked against the order dated 26/28.08.2017 passed by respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner's allotment of the plot for commercial purpose has been cancelled and the amount deposited by him has been returned.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

3. The Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority, Gorakhpur [GIDA], the respondent no. 2, issued an advertisement on 22.07.2014 inviting applications for allotment of 26 vacant industrial plots of different sizes in Industrial Area, Gorakhpur. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner made an application on 19.08.2014 for allotment of an industrial plot of an area of 9000 square meters in Sector-13 or in any other sector.

4. The respondent no. 2 vide a communication letter dated 30.08.2014 informed the petitioner that for allotment of the said plots an Allotment Committee has been constituted and he was asked to appear before the Allotment Committee for his interview. The interview was held on 28.01.2015. The petitioner was issued an allotment letter dated 31.03.2015, whereby he was allotted Plot No. F-5 in Industrial Sector-15. The area of the plot is 6733 square meter.

5. On 01.01.2016 the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,02,570/-. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner on 15.01.2016. By a notice dated 03.02.2016 the petitioner was asked to deposit maintenance fee as well as lease rent.

6. It is stated in the petition that in the meantime after the allotments were made, complaints were made to various authorities in respect of the irregularity in the allotment of the plots including the Commissioner of the Division, who set up an enquiry on 02.11.2015. The enquiry report was placed before the GIDA and which resolved to stay the allotment proceedings and to cancel all the allotments. It also appears from the materials on record that serious complaints regarding the irregularity committed by the Chief Executive Officer [CEO] and the Manager (Property) of the GIDA were made. Pursuant to the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was made and it was forwarded to the State Government and on the basis of the report dated 28.12.2015 the State Government passed an order dated 19.02.2016 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials.

7. In compliance of the order of the State Government the two delinquent officers, namely, Gyan Prakash Tripathi and Anil Kumar Singh preferred a writ petition, being Service Bench No. 5769 of 2016, Gyan Prakash Tripathi and another v. State of U.P. and others, in this Court at Lucknow Bench to challenge the disciplinary proceedings amongst other grounds that enquiry officers are junior to the petitioners therein. The order passed by the Court on 16.03.2017 reads as under:

"The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19 February 2016 passed by the State Government, whereby the State Government has taken a decision to issue a charge sheet against the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report submitted by two members of fact finding enquiry committee.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said committee was constituted with the two officers who had been juniors to the petitioner that too on the basis of complaint made by the District General Secretary, Samajwadi Party, Gorakhpur. It has been submitted that the said complaint has not been made by any public representative rather it is based on the political party politics which may not be the basis for an inquiry.

The petitioner has also brought on record the said inquiry report. Since the inquiry report has reported some irregularities in allotment of plots, therefore, we, suo motu permit the respondents to inquire the matter by some senior officers independently and the report submitted by those officer would only be the basis for further action.

With the aforesaid liberty the order impugned dated 19 Februa