HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.17633 of 2011 Date : 30-11-2011 Between: M/s. Sri Balajee Wire Products, Represented by its proprietor Iskala Rohini Kumar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam- 12. .. Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), represented by its Zonal Manager-cum-PAC Chairman, Visakhapatnam and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Krishna Prakash Counsel for respondents : Sri P. Roy Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allotting the plot of size of the petitioner’s requirement in Block D of Industrial Park, Autonagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to follow 16.2% reservation under Scheduled Castes quota by allotting 1500 sq.mts. or more to its Unit. I have heard Sri P. Krishna Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), representing the respondents. The petitioner applied to the respondents for allotment of an industrial plot for the purpose of establishing a Wire-Drawing Unit. Initially, his application for allotment of 1250 sq.mts. of land in Block F was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for allotment of 1500 sq.mts. in Block D. Considering the said application, the petitioner was allotted plot bearing No.260, admeasuring 705 sq.mts. Not being satisﬁed with the size of the said plot allotted in his favour, the petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions, namely, (i) that the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste person, he is entitled for reservation of 16.2% under S.C. quota and (ii) that non-allotment of plot of the size of 1500 sq.mts. is arbitrary and discriminatory. Even though counter-aﬃdavit is not ﬁled by the respondents, Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, on instructions, submitted that as far as reservation is concerned, the respondents have been following the same. The petitioner was denied allotment of any plot in Block F as already 9 plots out of 16 plots were allotted in favour of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste. He submitted that by following reservation, the petitioner was allotted plot No.260, admeasuring 705 sq.mts. in Block D. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no uniformity in sizes of the plots while allotting the same to the entrepreneurs and that the size of the plot to be allotted depends upon the nature of the industry and its requirement and that considering the requirement of the petitioner, the respondents were satisﬁed that the area of 705 sq.mts. is enough for running a Wire-Drawing Industry and accordingly plot No.260 was allotted to him. As far as the plea of reservation is concerned, as a plot was allotted to the petitioner, the said plea has no relevance. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that plot of adequate size has not been allotted, the petitioner has not pleaded that the minimum size of plot required for running a Wire-Drawing Industry is 1500 sq.mts. The petitioner has not ﬁled any project report supported by an expert opinion that a Wire-Drawing Industry cannot be run on a plot of less than 1500 sq.mts. in size. I ﬁnd merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the size of the plot to be allotted to the entrepreneurs depends upon the nature of the industry and the area required for running such an industry. In the absence of any speciﬁc material produced by the petitioner to show that a Wire-Drawing Unit cannot be run on a plot of 705 sq.mts. in size, the action of the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioner for allotment of a plot of 1500 sq.mts. in size cannot be termed as either illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner failed to plead and demonstrate that any of his legally enforceable rights have been infringed. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.21207/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 30-11-2011 AM