IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.10051 of 2011 BETWEEN P. Rama Bhupal Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Parisram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. RAMBHOOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P. ROY REDDY MR. NIVARTHI M.S. The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner, in this writ petition, claims that he was allotted plots 100 to 105 in the Industrial Park, Giddalur, vide order of allotment by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short ‘Corporation’) dated 11.10.2010. However, no agreement was entered into and he has only deposited provisional cost. 2. The writ petition came to be filed when the corporation passed cancellation order dated 06.01.2011 cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner. The principal ground urged in support of the writ petition is that the said order of cancellation is without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the corporation as well as the learned counsel, who is opposing this writ petition by filing implead petition. 4. Counter filed by the respondent – corporation states that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was only provisional and as such no rights are conferred on the petitioner and on that ground justified their action of not issuing notice before cancellation. It is also contended that mere payment of amount towards land cost does not confer any legally enforceable right on the petitioner in the absence of any agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent – corporation, however, fairly concedes that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to withdrawing the allotment and that the corporation will comply with the principles of natural justice, if this Court feels that the notice to the petitioner is necessary. 6. Learned counsel for the impleaded respondent No.3 submits that plots 100 to 110 were originally allotted to the impleaded third respondent vide allotment by the corporation dated 24.07.2010 and thereafter, an agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession was executed in favour of the third respondent and registered on 18.01.2011. He submits that when the allotment of all the plots 100 to 110 exist in favour of the third respondent, there could not have been allotment of part of the plots to the writ petitioner. He also contends that even the allotment in favour of the third respondent, as above, was also cancelled by the corporation unilaterally, which was questioned before this court in WP.No.9118 of 2011 and by order dated 07.04.2011 the said writ petition was allowed on the ground that the order of cancellation of allotment without notice and opportunity was unsustainable and consequently, the order of cancellation of the third respondent’s allotment was set aside leaving the corporation free to pass an order after issuance of notice. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that when he is already an allottee for plots 100 to 110 there could not have been any allotment in favour of the petitioner. 7. In my opinion, the comparative assessment of eligibility of the petitioner and the third respondent for allotment of plots does not fall within the scope of the present writ petition, as this writ petition only concerns the validity of the order of cancellation passed by the respondent – corporation against the writ petitioner under the impugned proceedings dated 06.01.2011. The analogy, which was applied by this Court in setting aside the similar cancellation order passed against the third respondent in the writ petition, referred to above, equally applies to the writ petitioner in the present case as well. Moreover, the learned standing counsel for the corporation fairly concedes that no show cause notice was issued prior to cancellation and that the corporation will issue appropriate show cause notice fulfilling principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside leaving the second respondent free to pass appropriate orders so far as the petitioner’s allotment is concerned by giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to make representation against such proposed action. So far as the claim of the third respondent is concerned, he is, undoubtedly, affected in the event of any allotment in favour of the petitioner herein and as such any order that would be passed with regard to the allotment of petitioner will have to be passed only after hearing the third respondent and considering his claim as well. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order giving liberty to the respondent – corporation to follow the principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders afresh after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 24, 2011 DSK