THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10936 of 2006 July 16, 2010 Between: K.Srinivas, S/o.Late Raja Rao … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10936 of 2006 ORDER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh in Industries Department allotted plot Nos.D5 and E5 admeasuring 1,895.74 Sq.Mts (2,267.30 Sq.yards) in Industrial Estate, Machilipatnam, to M/s.Lakshmi Prasanna Modern Bricks and Concrete Work, a firm consisting of Smt.Koneru Sarala Devi and her son, Koneru Ravindranath, for manufacturing of hallow bricks and cement works. The sale consideration was Rs.9,636.05 ps. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Company (APIIC) was established in 1975 and all industrial estates in the State were transferred to them. Again on 27.11.1996, APIIC formally allotted industrial plot to the firm which is now continued by the petitioner who is son of Sarala Devi. A decade and a half after the allotment, APIIC executed a sale agreement on 30.10.1991. Seven years thereafter a sale deed was executed on 19.6.1998 in favour of two partners of the firm. After petitioner took the management, he applied on 05.4.2004 for permission to rebuild the factory. The same was not considered. But on 23.9.2005, second respondent issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel the allotment. The petitioner was directed to appear before him for personal enquiry. Petitioner alleges that a representative of petitioner went to the Office of APIIC on 19.10.2005, but the second respondent was not present in the office. Subsequently without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity of being heard, second respondent passed orders on 31.3.2006 cancelling the allotment. This order is assailed in the writ petition on the ground that the same is illegal and arbitrary and that APIIC has no power to cancel the allotment and that even according to the sale deed executed on 19.6.1998 the factory has been working. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 raising objections regarding the maintainability of writ petition and justifying the cancellation on the ground of failure to implement the project for which the land was allotted by APIIC. The other allegations made by the petitioner are not denied. This Court heard the Counsel for petitioner and Standing Counsel for APIIC. This writ petition was heard along with W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch. Similar contentions were raised by APIIC with regard to maintainability of writ petitions. This Court by common order dated 16.7.2010 in the said batch has held that when once the sale deed is registered in favour of allottee, the cancellation of allotment would be arbitrary and in such an event, petition for judicial review is maintainable. Therefore, the objection of APIIC is unsustainable. The attention of this Court is invited to Clause 6 of the sale deed dated 19.6.1998. The same is to the effect that petitioner constructed factory building and gone into production of hallow bricks and cement works. This itself would belie the allegation in the impugned order that petitioner failed to establish industry. The allegation of petitioner that he was not given adequate opportunity of being heard before passing impugned order remains uncontraverted. There is no whisper about this aspect in the counter affidavit. This would lead to an inference that the second respondent passed orders in great haste without conducting inspection and without conducting enquiry. Even otherwise when once a sale deed is registered, the vendor cannot have any authority to take any action which has the effect of nullifying the valid transfer of immovable property. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is allowed without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July , 2010 YS