The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.1366 and 5702 of 2011 Date: 16-11-2011 Common Order: Since the subject matter of these two Writ petitions is interconnected, they are heard and being disposed of together. WP.No.1366 of 2011 is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in trying to allot the abandoned well site admeasuring 500 square yards adjacent to plot No.D.27, Assistant Private Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam, to third parties contrary to the Rules of respondent No.1- Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary. WP.No.5702 of 2011 is ﬁled by the same petitioner for a Mandamus to declare the allotment of the abovementioned site in favour of respondent No.4 vide letter No.ZO/APIIC/VSP/IP- VSP/P-D27/VF/2010-11, dated 28-01-2011, of respondent No.3, and consequential letter No.28985/AMW/D8/2011, dated 23-02-2011, of respondent No.1, informing the petitioner that the area applied for by the petitioner is not vacant as the same was allotted to respondent No.4, as illegal. I have heard Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short ‘APIIC’), appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both the Writ Petitions and Sri D.Srinivas Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 in WP.No.5702 of 2011. The petitioner was allotted plot bearing No.D.27 admeasuring 1544 square yards in Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam, and sale deed, dated 04-11-1982, was registered in his favour by respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that plot No.D.27 comprised an abandoned well along with a pump house. While executing the sale deed, the said well was excluded from the plot conveyed to the petitioner. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that there were, in all, six bore wells, which were similarly situated in diﬀerent industrial plots and the plots occupied by ﬁve abandoned borewells were allotted and registered in favour of the allottees of the respective plots over which those bore wells were situated. The petitioner has made an application to respondent Nos.1 to 3, for allotment of the plot occupied by the abandoned bore well on payment of market value, on 15-03- 2007 and the same was followed by subsequent applications on 21-02-2008 and 08-11-2010. As those applications were not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1366 of 2011. This Court passed interim order on 28-01- 2011 directing the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. On the same day of passing the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have allotted the subject plot in favour of respondent No.4 in pursuance of its application made on 24- 01-2011. Following the said allotment, respondent No.3 has informed the petitioner by letter, dated 23-03-2011, that his application for allotment cannot be considered as the plot was already allotted in favour of respondent No.4. Assailing these two communications, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.5702 of 2011. Separate counter-aﬃdavits have been ﬁled on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP.No.1366 of 2011 and also in WP.No.5702 of 2011. Respondent No.4 in WP.No.5l702 of 2011 has also ﬁled a counter-affidavit. The sum and substance of all the counter- aﬃdavits is that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts viz., that he has not fully utilized the plot allotted to him; that he has subdivided the total extent of 1290.38 square meters/1544 square yards allotted to him into four plots; that he gave two plots on rental basis for industrial purpose, sold one plot to a third party for canteen purpose and utilized the balance land for plastic industry. On this premise, it is pleaded that neither the petitioner genuinely needs the subject plot nor he is entitled for allotment of the same. In support of these allegations, respondent No.4 has ﬁled the purported copy of the sale deed, stated to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the third parties. This Court has perused the record produced by Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC. A perusal of the note ﬁle shows that the applications of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4 were considered. It is stated therein that the petitioner wanted allotment of 300 square meters of plot to maintain greenery; that the Zonal Manager has stated that the petitioner has subdivided the plot allotted to him into four plots and gave two plots on rental basis for industrial purpose, sold one plot to a third party for running canteen and is running a plastic industry over the balance land and that the petitioner has, accordingly, not put the entire property into proper use. As against this, it was opined that the application of respondent No.4 in W.P.No.5702 of 2011 deserves to be accepted as he seeks establishment of a wafer biscuit unit. The petitioner ﬁled a reply-aﬃdavit wherein he has denied the allegations that he has subdivided the plot allotted to him into four plots and that he has leased out two plots and sold one plot. The learned Standing Counsel for APIIC submitted that since the note ﬁle shows that the petitioner’s application was duly considered before taking a decision in favour of respondent No.4, such a decision is not liable to be interfered with and that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by not formally communicating the rejection of his application and that therefore, the decision of the Corporation, in allotting the land in favour of respondent No.4, does not suﬀer from any illegality. The allegation that the petitioner has unauthorisedly subdivided the plot and is using only a part thereof for industrial purpose is not communicated to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner is denied the opportunity of meeting the said allegation. The petitioner’s application ought not to have been rejected on the unilateral conclusion arrived at by the respondents on the above aspect. Even though no indefeasible right is vested in the petitioner for allotment of the plot in question, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not denied the fact that, in respect of other allottees, the plots, on which the abandoned borewells were located, were allotted to the neighbouring plot allottees. Unless it is found that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he has disentitled himself for such allotment, denial of allotment of the subject plot to him constitutes discrimination. It is, therefore, necessary that before denying such allotment to the petitioner, he ought to have been given an opportunity of putting forth his case on the allegations, which, in the view of respondent Nos.1 to 3, disentitles the petitioner for allotment. Admittedly, this procedure is not followed. Hence, I ﬁnd that the whole decision making process is vitiated by procedural illegality and violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground and without going into the various allegations made against the petitioner, the orders impugned in WP.No.5702 of 2011 are set aside. Respondent No.3- Zonal Manager is directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4 regarding the allotment of the subject plot and take a decision afresh. The petitioner and respondent No.4 shall be given an opportunity of presenting their respective cases along with the material, if any, before respondent No.3 taking a fresh decision. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till a fresh decision is taken and the order is communicated to both the parties, status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to the plot in question. W.P.Nos.1366 and 5702 of 2011 are disposed of accordingly. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th November, 2011 LUR