THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12852 of 2006 July 16, 2010 Between: Sri Divya Wires, represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. Pothuri Bharathi, W/o.P.Shyam Babu … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12852 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.5.2006 of the second respondent, namely, Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the allotment of industrial plot at Autonagar, Phase-IV, Guntur, in favour of third respondent was cancelled. The brief fact of the matter which is not in dispute may be noticed. The Plot Nos.7 to 10 admeasuring 877.18 Sq.Mts (1,048 Sq.yards) were allotted to third respondent on 04.6.1996 for setting up a small scale industrial unit viz., “bales pressing”. The allotment was made by second respondent on 29.5.1997. The allottee paid an amount of Rs.1,31,577/- at Rs.150/- per Sq.Mtr. The parties entered into agreement dated 18.10.1997 and possession was delivered to third respondent. Allegedly third respondent fulfilled all the conditions of the agreement. APIIC then executed a registered sale deed dated 08.3.2001 transferring the title to third respondent. There was no condition prohibiting third respondent from alienating the plot. The petitioner herein is proprietary concern, engaged in the manufacturing of copper wire. It owns special plot No.1 in Phase-IV Block-6 of Autonagar, Guntur. With a view to expand their unit, petitioner purchased Plots from third respondent. It is averred that in June 2004 petitioner and third respondent submitted sale deed to Sub Registrar, Peda Kakani, who sought clarification from second respondent. By letter dated 06.6.2004, the latter informed that APIIC has no objection for sale of plot to other party subject to condition that the plot has to be utilized for industrial purpose only. Thereafter the sale deed dated 24.5.2006 between the petitioner and third respondent was registered conveying right, title and interest in the said industrial plots. The petitioner set up copper wire manufacturing unit. In the mean while on 02.11.2005, APIIC issued a show cause notice to third respondent asking him to show cause as to why allotment of plots should not be cancelled for breach of conditions of allotment order, sale agreement and sale deed and that, third respondent allegedly failed to set up small scale unit. The show cause notice was not served on third respondent. Thereafter, on 24.5.2006, second respondent passed impugned order cancelling the allotment and advising to approach APIIC for refund of money if any as per the allotment Regulations. The counter affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition inter alia on the ground that it is not maintainable and that original allottee failed to perform his part of the contract. It is also alleged that third respondent sold the industrial plot without prior permission and without adhering to the conditions of sale. The other allegations made by petitioner are not denied. This writ petition was heard along with W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch. Similar contentions were raised by APIIC with regard to maintainability of writ petitions. This Court by common order dated 16.7.2010 in the said batch has held that when once the sale deed is registered in favour of allottee, the cancellation of allotment would be arbitrary and in such an event, petition for judicial review is maintainable. Therefore, the objection of APIIC is unsustainable. There is no serious dispute that third respondent commenced bales pressing unit (presumably cotton bales pressing) in the industrial plot allotted to him. The contention of APIIC that original allottee did not obtain permission before transferring the plot to petitioner stands belied by the letter addressed by their Assistant Zonal Manager. The said letter No.7/B1.1/AN-GNT/IV/04, dated 07.6.2004 reads as under. Lr.No.7/B1.1/AN-GNT/IV/04, Dt.07.6.2004 To The Sub-Registrar, PEDAKAKANI. Sir, Sub: AN.Guntur Plot No.7 to 10/B1.1 of Ph.IV, A sale deed executed in favour of M/s.Amaravathi Traders, Mg.Ptr. Sri P.Anjaiah – Regarding. Ref: His application Dt.06.6.2004. - - - It is informed that the subject plot measuring an extent of 1,048.10 Sq.yards was allotted and registered in favour of M/s.Amaravathi Traders, a Partnership firm represented by its Mg.Partner Sri P.Anjaiah vide Document No.361/2001. There are no dues on the subject plot to APIIC. We have no objection if the allottees have register the above plot to other party subject to condition that the plot has to be utilized for industrial purpose only. Yours faithfully, Sd/- XX XX Addl.Zonal Manager (D) Being a fully owned Government company discharging an important public function of industrialization, APIIC cannot be expected to act arbitrarily without application of mind. On this ground alone, the impugned order must fail the scrutiny by this Court. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is therefore allowed with costs and the impugned order is set aside. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July , 2010 YS