- (1.) Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4.
(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs: " i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records and quashing the order dated 28.04.2005 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure--1 to the writ petition) ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure--2 to the writ petition). iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of PROHIBITION restraining the respondents from allotting the plot no. D-26 at Export Promotion Industrial Park to any other third person. iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to hand over physical possession of the plot no. D-26 to the petitioner at Export Promotion Industrial Part as well as to permit the petitioner to set up its software unit within a period of one year. v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 2 to execute a lease deed in respect of the plot no. 26 of the petitioner. vi) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. vii) to award costs to the petitioner."
(3.) Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as follows: 3.1 The respondent no. 2, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. UPSIDC Complex, A-1/4, Lakhanpur, Kanpur is a State instrumentality for promotion of industrial development in the State and respondent no. 3 and 4 are its officers. 3.2 The respondent no. 2 has brought a scheme for the development of Export Promotion Industrial Park at Greater Noida. 3.3 In response to the advertisement published in this regard, the petitioner had applied for plot. He was allotted 1000 sq. Meter of land for setting up an industrial unit and accordingly allotment order dated 26.11.1996 (Annexure- no. 3) has been issued. 3.4 According to terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 26.11.1996, the petitioner has paid entire value of the plot alongwith interest (a sum of Rs. 13,58,899.95) as per details given in Annexure- 9. 3.5 On the request of the petitioner, his original plot no. D-116 has been changed to plot no. D-26. Subsequent to that due to change of circumstances, respondent has changed Plot no. D-26 from Plot no. D-122, on further request of the petitioner, Plot No. D-122 was again changed to Plot No. D-26. 3.6 The petitioner has obtained permission of Tele-Communications Department to set up an International Call Centre (Annexure-17) valid up to 20 years. 3.7 Vide order dated 27.01.2005 (Annexure-2), the respondent no. 2 has cancelled the allotment of plot no. D-26 allotted to the petitioner. 3.8 The petitioner requested for review of the above order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the respondents through letter dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure-10). He has also sent a reminder letter dated 10.02.2005 (Annexure-11) in the above request. 3.9 The petitioner has submitted necessary documents required from him vide letter dated 11.03.2005 (Annexure-14) alongwith undertaking to the effect that he will take possession of D-26 EPIP Greate Noida Kasna within three month and start making building within six months and start Factory and export within one year after the date of re-allotment of plot to him. He has also given undertaking that if he is not able to fulfil the above said condition then in that condition Corporation will be free to cancel my plot No. D-26 allotted to me and in that condition he will not context his claim in any Court. 3.10 By impugned orders dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure- 1) the petitioner was informed about rejection of his application for re-allotment of Plot No. D-26. 3.11 Feeling aggrieved by the above orders dated 28.04.2005 and 27.01.2005, the petitioner has filed present writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2008. 3.12 Against the said order dated 20.02.2004, Civil Appeal No. 1205 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) no. 20015 of 2008, has been filed by the respondents, which has been disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 01.02.2010, which is reproduced herein below:- " Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, the High Court should have, after considering the pleadings of the parties and arguments of their respective counsel decided the issue relating to legality of the action taken by the appellants for cancellation of alternative plot i.e., Plot No. D-26 allotted to the respondents and ought not to have dispose of the writ petition filed by the respondents on the basis of statement made by the parties and the affidavit of Shri V. K. Singh, Assistant Manager (Law). For the reason stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court with the request that the writ petition filed by the respondents be decided afresh as early as possible but latest before the end of year 2010. Till the hearing of the matter by the High Court, Plot No. D-26 shall not be allotted to any other persons.";