IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2008 (M/S) Bharat Floriculture Through Partner Nanhe Khan R/o P-269, III Phase, Shivalik Nagar BHEL, Haridwar. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. through its Managing Director. 2. Jan Mohammad Ansari (Partner) S/o Sri Kalu Ansari, R/o S-241, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.10.2005, and order dated 19.08.2008, passed by respondent No. 1. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner sought allotment of plot from State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited for setting up an 2 industry. As per the terms of allotment the petitioner was required to set up industry within a period of two years and has to start commercial production within said period. The petitioner, who was allotted the plot in January 2004, has not set up any industry. Consequently, vide order dated 27.10.2005, he was warned that the deposits made by him would be forfeited if he does not abide by the terms, and finally, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner went before the Lokayukta, Uttarakhand, and got issued certain directions to reconsider his case. After reconsidering, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 19th August 2008. 4) The whole object of allotment of plots by respondent No. 1 is the speedy industrilization of the State. What the petitioner has done is that after getting allotted the plot, he has indirectly blocked the industrilization of the State, as respondent No. 1 was unable to allot the plot to anyone else till the cancellation of the allotment. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 5728 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. September 02, 2008. H.Negi