WP(C) 4540/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also he ard Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General representing the responden ts. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure I) issued by the Managing Director, Assam Industrial Infrastracture Development Corporatio n (AIIDC) whereby the respondent authorities had cancelled the allotment of land granted to the petitioner for setting up an Industry with the allegation that f or more than one and half years, the allottee had not taken up any development w orks and effective measures to utilize the allotted lands. 3. For the petitioners, it is contended by Mr. N Dutta, learned senior coun sel that there was delay in starting works immediately after the allotment on Fe bruary 2008, because there was delay in granting of the Registration Certificate by the Industries Department, which was granted only on 3.1.2009 and delay also was occasioned because of the recessionary trends in the economy and therefore, the petitioners were unable to raise the resources for commencing the project. It is further submitted that this fact was well known to the AIIDC authorities a nd an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioners before issuing th e impugned cancellation order on 20.8.2009 just 2 days after expiry of the exten ded period for commencing construction activities in the allotted land. 4. Mr. K N Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that despite several c ommunications to the petitioners to commence their activities, they failed to re act positively to AIIDC’s suggestions and considering the scarce land at the dis posal of the AIIDC, they had decided to cancel the allotment made to the petitio ners, as there were several other wiling Enterpreneurs interested to set up indu stries in the available lands. It is further submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the present matter should not be entertained by the writ Court as there is an arbit ration clause covering the issue and the petitioners should be relegated to avai l of the arbitration remedy. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. It is well known that the State is trying to attract Enterpreneurs for speedy industrialization of the backward region. Thus a lingering litigation between a wiling Enterpreneur and the State Authorities would not serve the interest of either of the parties. The petition ers may have acceptable excuse for not being able to start the Industry on time. It is also likely that the respondent AIIDC were justified in canceling the lan d allotment as the petitioners failed to abide by the terms of the allotment. 6. Be that as it may, considering the submissions made that the allottee wa s not afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned cancellatio n order and their representation dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure E) addressed to the Ma naging Director, AIIDC has remained pending without consideration, I deem it app ropriate to direct the competent Authority of the AIIDC to dispose of the said r epresentation dated 7.9.2009 filed by the petitioner, with a speaking order. A p ersonal hearing may also be afforded to the petitioners at the time of considera tion of the said representation. 7. Mr. Choudhury assures that within 2 weeks from today the representation can be disposed of on merit by the respondents. 8. In view of above, this case is ordered to be closed by directing the Man aging Director, AIIDC (Respondent No.2) to consider and dispose of the petitione rs’ representation with a speaking order after affording them a personal hearing in the matter. The petitioners would furnish to the respondent No.2 a fresh cop y of their representation dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure E) along with a copy of this Court’s order within 3 days from today for consideration, in terms of this order . 9. Petition is disposed of accordingly.