Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) -Both these writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and involve same questions of fact and law, hence they are decided by a common order.
(2.) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, Sri B. K. Narain, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V. B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 (respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 8197 of 2007). Through these writ petitions, the petitioners M/s. Midi Extrusions Ltd. claiming itself to be a Public Limited Company has assailed the order dated 24.3.2001 and 28.2.2002, cancelling the licence/allotment of Industrial plot No. B4 situate in Industrial Area, Site No. V, Surajpur in district Ghaziabad. In addition to this, the petitioner has claimed restoration of the said industrial plot and also cancellation of allotment made to M/s. Precisions Pipes and Profiles Company Ltd., respondent No. 3 in whose favour the aforementioned plot was subsequently finally allotted on 12.9.2006 after making some temporary allotment to some other parties. Presently, the aforementioned plot has been leased out to respondent No. 3. It emerges from the record that on 29.10.1988, the U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (U.P.S.I.D.C.), a State Government Corporation incorporated for industrial development of the State of U. P. had allotted an industrial plot C-8 Kasna II, Ghaziabad measuring about 14482 Sq. mts. in favour of the petitioner. Later on, on the request of the petitioner, it was allotted another industrial plot which is in dispute, that is, plot No. B-4 Surajpur industrial area site No. V in lieu of plot No. C8 Kasna on 28.12.1989. The petitioner was a licensee of the aforesaid industrial plot for which a specific agreement was executed between the parties on 25.1.1990. The plot was covering an area of 17266 Sq. mts. A copy of a written agreement containing various terms and conditions has been placed on record of both the petitions. On 18.8.1993, the petitioner had paid Rs. 24,01,939 as demanded by the Corporation. Later on 24.3.1994, the U.P.S.I.D.C. has refunded the excess sum to the petitioner after finalisation of the accounts to be deposited by the petitioner in respect of the licence agreement. The petitioner which was earlier a private limited company was changed the public limited company on 15.2.1996.
(3.) AS per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the basic infrastructure facilities were not provided by the U.P.S.I.D.C. and as such the petitioner had to set up its industrial unit in Hosiery Complex in the adjoining NOIDA area. The petitioner could not construct the building and establish its industry on the plot allotted to it. The U.P.S.I.D.C. sent a notice on 31.7.1998 to the petitioner for setting up the industry. In response to this letter, the petitioner claimed that he had submitted building plan for approval of U.P.S.I.D.C. and requested to execute the lease deed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. one lakh towards the processing fee for approval for recording the change of status of the company from a private limited to public limited company. AS per the learned counsel for the petitioner during the period from 1993 to January, 2001, the petitioner has been pursuing the concerned authorities of U.P.S.I.D.C. to sanction the plan and execute the lease deed to enable it to commence and complete the construction of industrial unit. However, without taking into account the request of the petitioner, the U.P.S.I.D.C. issued a letter on 24.3.2001 cancelling the licence of the petitioner over industrial plot. The petitioner sought revocation of the said order but he was asked to deposit the restoration fee amounting to Rs. 6,15,013.30 p. However, the petitioner gave his consent for payment of restoration fee imposed on him and requested for enlargement of project implementation period from two years to three years so that necessary machinery and equipments may be imported and installed at the site. Another letter dated 24.7.2002 had been sent by the U.P.S.I.D.C. to the petitioner enhancing the restoration levy to Rs. 12,30,026.60 p. The time frame was also reduced to one year only to complete the project. The petitioner requested the authorities to restrict the demand of levy to Rs. 6,15,013.30 p. and not to unnecessarily enhance the same. The petitioner's written requests were turned down on 17.9.2002 indicating in the letter of refusal dated 17.9.2002 that the U.P.S.I.D.C. has already allotted the plot to some other party, that is, respondent No. 3 in the earlier petition on 24.8.2002. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 52573 of 2002 challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of plot vide letter dated 24.3.2001 and finally rejecting the restoration application on 28.7.2002 and 17.9.2002. An order of this Court granted indulgence and ordered the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner has challenged the subsequent allotment order passed in favour of respondent No. 4 branding it illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner has further raised the grievance that M/s. Precision Pipe and Profiles Company is raising the construction over the disputed plot without any authority. Sri B. K. Narain, standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has resisted both the writ petitions by filing counter-affidavit. According to the U.P.S.I.D.C., the petitioner was merely a licencee over the plot in dispute. The terms and conditions of the allotment were spelt out in the allotment order dated 10.7.1988 and other letter dated 29.10.1988 and the written agreement executed between the parties on 25.1.1990 containing various clauses, specially clauses 4 (e), 5, 13 and 13A were read out and highlighted before the Court. It was categorically indicated that the petitioner must raise construction of the building within nine months and commence manufacturing process within two years. The petitioner was sent written notices from time to time by U.P.S.I.D.C., i.e., 31.7.1998, 21.7.1992, 2.8.2000, 1.11.2000, 13.12.2000, 21.5.2001, 1.6.2001, 17.8.2001, 17.9.2001, 3.1.2002, 13.3.2002, 3.4.2002 and finally on 24.7.2002 to complete the construction and commence production. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has taken the Court to these notices which have been placed on record of these writ petitions. A perusal of these notices like notices dated 13.1.2001, 24.3.2001, 21.5.2001, 1.6.2001, 17.8.2001, 17.9.2001, 3.1.2002 and finally on 24.7.2002 shows that they were sent to ensure compliance of instructions and fulfil the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. On various occasions, it was made clear to the petitioner that he must complete the construction and commence production at the industrial site within the stipulated period given in the agreement of licence. He was also duly informed that vide the terms and conditions contained in clauses 13 and 13 (A), the petitioner must seek approval in writing of U.P.S.I.D.C. before changing the status and character of the company. Prior written permission of the Corporation U.P.S.I.D.C. was a condition precedent as per the terms and conditions of the licence. The petitioner had failed to deposit the requisite amount for change of status of the company. It had also failed to deposit the restoration levy after formal cancellation of the allotment. After revocation of licence issued vide order dated 24.3.2001, the petitioner ceased to be a licensee. The petitioner has breached the conditions of allotment and he had not fulfilled the conditions imposed upon him by the U.P.S.I.D.C. as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement and various letters issued from time to time and the petitioner's allotment was rightly cancelled on 24.3.2001. The petitioner had failed to fulfil the conditions imposed for revocation of licence or cancellation order. Therefore, U.P.S.I.D.C. had no other option except to refuse revocation of licence and it was within its right to allot the plot to other eligible party.;