IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION Nos.6777 and 6885 of 2010 PETITIONERS: Sri Surya Chandra Industries, Reptd., by its Managing Partner- Sri Surya B.Viriyala. …in WP 6777/2010 & Chandra Engineers & Contractors, Reptd., by its Proprietor-Sri Nadisetti Ramachandra Rao. …in WP 6885/2010 Vs. REPONDENTS (both the cases) The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (a Govt., of AP., undertaking) 5-9-58/B, 6th Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Fathe Maidan Road, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Chairman and Managing Director and another. BOTH THE CASES: Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Roy Reddy. This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions, being common in all respects, are heard and being disposed of together. I have heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners were allotted industrial plots/land by the respondents and in pursuance of thereof, the respondents entered into an Agreement of sale of land, which was duly registered. Under Clause 8(c) of the Agreement, the petitioners agreed to commence construction of factory buildings, after securing necessary clearances from the competent authorities within six months of being put in possession of the said plots/land and shall also commence commercial production duly erecting machinery, and obtaining regular power supply connections within two years of being put in possession of the allotted plots/land. It further envisages that any extension of time will be subject to levying of penalty at 10% on the land cost at the prevailing rates and no extension for more than two years will be entertained. At the request of the petitioners, the respondents have extended the time to implement the projects upto 31-1-2010. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions anticipating that the respondents may cancel the allotments and reclaim the plots/land in their possession for non-compliance with the above mentioned condition relating to commencement of constructions and commercial production. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the above mentioned clause in the agreement is couched in peremptory terms, the respondents have considered similar requests and extended the time beyond two years. However, the learned counsel has not given any specific instances in support thereof. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have themselves approached the respondents with a request to extend time by six months and, accordingly, their request was accepted and time was extended; and that even after expiry of the extended time, constructions have not been commenced. The learned counsel also submitted that the Writ Petitions are premature as no decision has been taken as yet by the respondents. In my considered view, the parties are bound by the agreement and this Court cannot direct the respondents to act contrary to the terms of the said agreement. However, if the respondents have considered similar requests in other cases, subject to their being satisfied that reasonable causes exist for non-compliance with the agreement condition; they may also consider the petitioners’ request for further extension of time. The petitioners are permitted to make fresh representations and the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same. The decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioners. Till then, the respondents shall not cancel the allotments made in favour of the petitioners. Subject to the above, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:09-04-2010 MNR