IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2073 of 2007 Judgment reserved on:30.8.2011. Date of decision: 01.9.2011 M/s.Jerath Electronics …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate vice Sh.B.N. Misra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 9.5.2006 and the communications dated 19.4.2007 and 23.10.2007 whereby the State has cancelled the allotment of Plot No.17 in favour of the petitioner and resumed the said plot be quashed and set-aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Company is a duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Act. It was set up for the production of key pad mechanism for electronic push button telephones on Plot No.20, Electronic Complex, Shoghi, Shimla. According to the petitioner, since the Company was not given subsidy and released the loans by the Government organizations within time it went into financial difficulties. 3. The petitioner was initially allotted plot No.20 vide allotment dated 3.10.1988 and lease deed in this behalf was signed on 7.10.1988. As far as Plot No.17 is concerned the same was allotted to the petitioner on 3.12.1991 and lease deed in this behalf was entered into between the parties on 6th April, 1993. Allotment of Plot No.17 was made in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing KPM Slemens Digital Telephone Hook, Switch Digital Telephone Assembling. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner could not change the industrial activities to be undertaken by the Unit without prior approval of the 3 Department and the petitioner was required to give employment to persons belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was to set up the Factory shed within a time frame of 45 days. As per the terms of the lease deed the industrial concern was to complete the construction of the Unit within one year from the date of handing over of the possession and was to establish the Industrial Unit in the aforesaid period. In case of non-compliance of the conditions the State was entitled to resume the plot. It appears that in between the petitioner set up a 100% owned subsidiary known as M/s.Zameer Enterprises at plot No.17 was allotted to it. 4. On 27.6.2003, a show cause notice was sent to M/s.Zameer Enterprises informing it that even though 11 years had elapsed no steps had been taken up to establish any industry on the plot and therefore M/s.Zameer Enterprises was asked to show cause why the plot be not resumed. Another show 4 cause notice on the same lines was issued on 8.7.2004. The petitioner did not still take any action but filed a reply on 8.7.2004. This reply was not accepted by the Department and it was found that though more than 12 years had elapsed no steps had been taken for implementation of the Project. The General Manager of the District Industries Center found that plot was lying vacant. The petitioner again made a request that he may be granted some time and on his request respondent No.3 sent a letter on 28.9.2004 informing him that he must bring his Unit into production within six months and pay a sum of Rs.30,240/- within one month failing which his plot would be cancelled. 5. Thereafter the petitioner came up with a fresh proposal to set up a Call Centre and a letter in this behalf was written to the respondents informing them that the petitioner wants to set up a Call Centre on the two plots allotted to it. Thereafter, the Special Secretary-cum- Director (IT) to the 5 Government of Himachal Pradesh sent a letter to the petitioner directing it to give details of its project. Similarly, respondent No.3 also sent a letter to the petitioner on 12.6.2006 directing it to give details of the Project. The petitioner applied for clearance of the Call Centre Project but on 3.8.2006 vide Annexure R-7, the petitioner was clearly informed that such a Call Centre Project could not be set up in the Industrial area of Shoghi and the petitioner could set up such a business enterprise somewhere else. He was also informed that if he did not utilize the leased plots for running an industrial unit, the allotment of the same could be cancelled and the plot resumed. The petitioner was informed of this fact on 3.8.2006. The petitioner has not made any reference about this letter in the writ petition and in fact has tried to mislead this Court by giving an impression that his proposal for setting up the Call Centre was still lying under consideration of the Government. 6 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 19.4.2007 that the allotment which has been cancelled vide letter dated 9.5.2006 could not be revoked. The petitioner thereafter on 25th April, 2007 sent a proposal for setting up another project which has not been accepted. Hence, the present petition. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the petitioner for almost two decades has failed to set up an industry. The petitioner company has been allotted a plot at a highly concessional rate. The State grants these industrial plots at cheap rates in order to ensure that there is an industry which will generate employment, help in boosting the economy and generate revenue for the State. The petitioner in this case has miserably failed to set-up the project. Every time in reply to the notice, the petitioner comes up with a fresh proposal but nothing concrete is done at the spot. 7 8. In view of the above discussion and especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has withheld the letter dated 3.8.2006 from this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-. September 1, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge