Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2007 that has been passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') requiring the petitioner to immediately stop the unauthorised constructions and submit a revised plan after removing the objections within a period of one week so that a decision can be taken failing which appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with the lease deed. Certain other consequential reliefs have also been sought.
(2.) A lease deed was executed on 5th January, 2006 between the petitioner and the Corporation in respect of Plot No.A-51 measuring 17874 square metres. In order to construct the building, the petitioner applied to the Corporation for sanction of building plan on 10th July, 2006. The Corporation, in response to the aforesaid application of the petitioner, sent a letter to the petitioner on 7th August, 2006 clearly mentioning the defects in the plan submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner then sent letter dated 19th August, 2006 to the Corporation in respect of the defects pointed out. The petitioner also sent some communications to the Corporation for sanctioning the plan but without waiting for any order from the Corporation regarding sanction of the plan, the petitioner started construction on the plot. The letter dated 12th January, 2007 clearly mentions that the petitioner raised the constructions without the plan having been sanctioned by the Corporation and, therefore, he should not only immediately stop the constructions but submit a revised plan within a period of one week after removing the defects so that appropriate decision can be taken failing which action in accordance with Clause 4 of the lease deed shall be taken against the petitioner.
(3.) Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12th January, 2007 refers to two earlier letters dated 27th November, 2006 and 17th December, 2006. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply dated 17th January, 2007 in response to the letter dated 12th January, 2007 sent by the Corporation which indicates that the objections had been removed but the officials of the Corporation were harassing the petitioner and, therefore, the notice dated 12th January, 2007 was totally unwarranted. He also placed before us the lease deed executed between the parties and contended that action could not be taken under Clause 4 of the said lease deed.;