- (1.) THE petitioner by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following reliefs : " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commandeering the respondents to process the petitioner's application/candidature for allotment of facility land for commercial purposes in industrial area, District Baghpat, in reference to the advertisement annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition, expeditiously, in accordance with law and allot him the facility land applied for by him within a reasonable and stipulated period of time. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the decision taken by them with regard to his aforesaid application/candidature Within a reasonable and stipulated period of time. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner might be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner throughout. "
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (In short "upsidc") issued an adver tisement sometime in October 2006 inviting applications from the interested en trepreneurs for allotment of different plots in the industrial area belonging to the respondent "upsidc". In response to the aforesaid advertisement, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-T to the writ petition, the petitioner applied for the allot ment of plots in his favour along with his project report. According to the peti tioner, he has completed all other formalities which he required to be completed and thus the respondents have issued call letter inviting the petitioner for inter view. THE petitioner appeared before the Project Officer, "upsidc", Tronica City, Ghaziabad, as stated above on the date fixed and he was told that the petitioner's ft application was required to be approved/cleared from the "upsidc" Head Office at Kanpur. THE petitioner ultimately received no response from the respondents, therefore the petitioner by means of application dated 23rd January, 2007 re quested the Managing Director, "upsidc", Kanpur that petitioner's application for allotment in Baghpat industrial area is pending, be decided. THE respondents have passed no orders, thus this writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner applied for commercial plots, whereas the applications were invited by the "upsidc" for industrial purpose and therefore the petitioner's application could not be entertained, as the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of commercial plots in the industrial area and as such after deduct ing the process fee of Rs. 1, 000/-, the remaining amount has been returned back to the petitioner vide cheque No. 717315 through registered post dated 15th De cember, 2007. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of plots and his money has been returned back which has been received by him. Therefore it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the present writ petition and the writ peti tion is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit an nexing therewith the copy of the advertisement issued by respondent "upsidc". It has been pointed out by learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as by respondents that the applications were invited from the interested entrepreneurs for allotment for industrial purposes at Baghpat and at no point of time it could be either demonstrated or made out that there was any approval or allotment for the plots for commercial purposes. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner can not be accepted and therefore deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. .;