IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13196 of 2006 Between: Madala Priyanandham S/o Veera Swamy Naidum R/o D. No. 24/2/643, Saraswathi Nagar, Darmitta, Nellore Town, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure, Corporation Ltd., repby Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad 2 The Zonal Manager, APIIC. Ltd., Industrial Estate, A.K. Nagar, Nellore-4 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issued a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings letter 808-A1/84/14930 dt 10-05-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent is as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set a side the impugned letter nO.808-A1/84/14930 dt 10-05-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:MR.K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings letter 808-A1/84/14930 dt.10.05.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent is as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned letter No.808-A1/84/14930 dt.10.05.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent.” The petitioner mainly pleaded that while he could not establish the industry within the time stipulated under the terms and conditions of allotment and agreement of sale, proposal to cancel such sale deed is beyond the power and authority of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He further pleaded that in cases where allotments and sale deeds were cancelled, the Corporation itself is revoking the cancellation orders on the allottees/vendees paying certain amount towards purported penalties for the delay in establishment of industries. After this case was heard at length, it was adjourned on the petitioner expressing his readiness and willingness to establish the industry, provided reasonable time is given to him. Having regard to this offer of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable him to file an affidavit giving undertaking to the above effect. Accordingly, a separate affidavit has been filed wherein he has undertaken to establish the industry within a period of one year from the date of sanctioning of plan and giving necessary approval for establishment of an industry, by the Corporation. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein he has unequivocally undertaken to establish the industry within the time limit of one year as stated above. Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on specific instructions, submitted that the Corporation has no objection to the offer made by the petitioner and this Court may pass appropriate order to ensure that the petitioner shall stand on the undertaking given by him and complete establishment of industry within one year from the date of giving approval by the Corporation. The fact that the plot is allotted to the petitioner for the specific purpose of establishment of industry as a part of scheme for promotion of industrial activity in the State is not in dispute. Therefore, public interest warrants that the purpose for which the allotment of plot is made is not frustrated. Either the petitioner should go ahead with the establishment of industry or give up the plot allotted to him. In view of the specific undertaking given by the petitioner as above, the necessity of this Court deciding various pleas raised by the petitioner touching the validity or otherwise of the proposal to cancel the allotment and sale deed by the Corporation is obviated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, at the hearing, that his client would abide by the undertaking given by him in the affidavit, if the Corporation sanctions the plan and gives necessary approval within a reasonable time. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that if the petitioner submits necessary application in this regard, the Corporation will dispose of the same and give necessary approval, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: i. The impugned proceedings are quashed. ii. The petitioner is permitted to submit an application for approval in complete shape and without any defect, within a period of three (3) months from today. iii. Within one month from the date of receipt of such application, the Corporation shall give necessary approval/sanction for establishment of an industry. Within one year from the date of receipt of such approval/sanction from the Corporation, the petitioner shall complete establishment of industry, commence the activity and report the same to the Corporation. iv. In the event of failure of the petitioner to comply with these directions, the Corporation is entitled to cancel the allotment and approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for cancellation of the sale deed. If suit in this regard is filed, the competent Civil Court shall dispose of the same within a period of six (6) months on such institution. The Corporation is also entitled to move appropriate application before this Court for passing order against the petitioner for violation of the undertaking. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 30.06.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.16398 of 2006 is dismissed. WPMP.No.17855 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JULY, 2009. kvni