Failure to commence production within stipulated time or seek extension justifies plot allotment cancellation after prolonged delay.

Common Order

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated

19.02.2020 passed by the 1^st respondent cancelling the allotment and also the impugned order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent evicting the petitioner from the Plot No.S-11 measuring 2.00 acres, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Ranipet Phase-III.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the plot was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 20.03.2008 thereafter, the same was handed over possession on 06.08.2008. Due to the various reasons, the petitioner was not able to commence commercial production therefore, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the 2^nd respondent passed an order dated 09.08.2021 evicting the petitioner from the said premises. He would submit that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner supposed to have commenced commercial production within 30 months from the date of handing over the plot however, the same was not complied due to the reasons that there was no water supply and there was a delay in getting the Pollution Control Board permission. He would further submit that the Pollution Control Board permission was obtained only in the year 2020 therefore, now they are ready to commence industrial activities. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioner filed these writ petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that though the plot was allotted on 20.03.2008 and handed over possession on 06.08.2008, for a period of twelve years i.e., till the date of cancellation of the allotment on 19.02.2020, the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions of the allotment, particularly, commencement of industrial activities within 30 months and even after 30 months period, no application was made by the petitioner for the purpose of extension of time relaxing the 30 months period. He would further submit that even though the petitioner had failed to file application for extension of time and commenced the commercial production within the prescribed time limit, the respondents all along waited for twelve years and without any other option, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and allotted the said plot to the third parties on 15.02.2022. It is stated that the third parties constructed factory in the said premises and commenced production therefore, in the event, if this Court is interfering with orders impugned, the third parties interest will affect.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the material available on record.

5. I find some force in the submission in the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner supposed to have commenced production within a period 30 months from the date of handing over of possession i.e., 06.08.2008, which is atleast on or before February, 2011. Admittedly, no such production was commenced on the part of the petitioner and if there is no production, the petitioner supposed to have made an application for extension of time for commencing production. Admittedly, no such application was also made by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, even after expiry of the time limit prescribed in the allotment, the respondents waited for more than 10 years and passed an order for cancellation. It is also undisputed that the third party allotment was made and the third parties constructed factory and commenced production.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined t