AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent cancelling the allotment of a site in an industrial estate for starting an industry. As per the conditions of allotment, the plot allotted should have been used for starting the industry within six months. Allotment was on 1.2.2007. For 2 = years the petitioner did not utilise the property for the purpose for which it was allotted. Therefore, by Ext.P3 order, the allotment was cancelled. The petitioner is challenging that order in this writ petition. The petitioner''s contention is that petitioner could not start the industry within time because of circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner including the necessity of shifting of 11 K.V. line which passes by the side of the plot for which the petitioner had to incur huge expenses, which also required time. Therefore, the petitioner submits that if some more time is granted the petitioner can start the business.
I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking a lenient view, I direct the second respondent to grant the petitioner three more months'' time to start the industry, for which the plot has been allotted to the petitioner. In the meanwhile Ext.P3 order shall be kept in abeyance. If the petitioner starts the business within the said time Ext.P3 would stand cancelled. However, if the petitioner is unable to start the industry within the time stipulated, Ext.P3 would revive and petitioner shall surrender vacant possession of the plot to the second respondent immediately after three months unless the respondents in their discretion are prepared to grant further extension for valid reasons.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.