Repeated non-compliance with lease obligations justifies cancellation, prioritizing public interest and fiscal discipline over personal hardships.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,[In short "UPSIDA" (earlier known as "UPSIDC”).]

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.05.2024, whereby the petitioner’s lease has been cancelled, and to set aside the subsequent order dated 12.08.2024, by which the petitioner’s review application dated 03.07.2024, seeking restoration of the allotment, has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks to cancel the scheduled e-auction of the plot in question and prays for a direction to the respondent authorities restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner from Plot No. E-236, ad- measuring 767.32 square meters, situated at Industrial Area Karkhiyaon, Phoolpur, Varanasi.

3. The petitioner was duly allotted the plot in question for the purpose of establishing industrial activities, in accordance with the policies and procedures prescribed by the concerned authorities. Respondent No. 2 – Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) – is a state-level industrial development authority entrusted with the responsibility of promoting and facilitating the development of industries across the State of Uttar Pradesh. As the governing body, UPSIDA exercises control over the allotment, management, and regulation of industrial plots within its notified areas, including the plot allotted to the petitioner.

4. The records reveal that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. E-236, admeasuring 767.32 square meters, situated in the Industrial Area, Karkhiyaon, Phoolpur, Varanasi, by UPSIDA through an allotment letter dated 18.11.2019, for the purpose of establishing a fruit ripening industrial unit. Pursuant to the allotment, the petitioner deposited the earnest money, completed all requisite formalities, and executed a 90-year lease deed on 25.09.2020. Despite taking possession of the plot, the petitioner failed to deposit the balance premium amount of Rs.19,82,912.03/-. She sought multiple extensions, citing financial constraints and health-related issues within her family, and even approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. 40081 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.12.2023, granting her liberty to clear the dues within a period of three months.

4.1 However, upon her failure to comply with the said order, the respondent authority cancelled the allotment vide order dated 24.05.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application dated 03.07.2024 seeking restoration of the plot, which was rejected by the respondent authority on 12.08.2024 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contends that the cancellation order was served upon her only on 05.06.2024, and therefore, her restoration application was within the prescribed time limit. Despite her repeated requests for restoration and her readiness to pay the outstanding dues along with interest, the respondent authority proceeded to list the plot for e-auction on 11.07.2025 pursuant to the e-auction notice dated 23.06.2025.

4.2 Aggrieved by the said actions, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing of the impugned orders dated 24.05.2024, 12.08.2024, and