IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.7472 of 2009 Between: V. Gangadharam ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh through the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, having its Zonal Office at Industrial Estate, Settipalli Post, Renugunta Road, Tirupati 517 506, Chittoor District, rep. by its Zonal Manager/Asst. Zonal Manager and two others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 17-04-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.9815 of 2009 this court made the following order: “It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent that the enquiry is still going on. In view of that, status quo obtaining as on date shall be maintained by the parties until further orders.” 2. W.V.M.P.No.64 of 2010 is filed to vacate the interim order. At the stage of hearing of the vacate application request has been made for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 3. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot in favour of the petitioner in the vacant plots available bearing Nos.80, 141, 176, 203, 260/A, 266/D, 269, 307, 309, 311, 312 and 315 and not to allot the vacant plots mentioned above in favour of any third party in S.V. Auto Nagar, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor district and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is a small time mechanic, doing tinkering, gas work and automobile mechanic works etc., and thus eking out his livelihood. He had become a permanent member of Tirupati Notified Industrial Area (S.V. Auto Nagar) Service Society – the second respondent, by paying the requisite admission fee. The third respondent herein had notified that they intend to allot plots for small time businessmen in S.V. Auto Nagar, Tirupati, and the interested persons, as per their eligibility, are asked to submit their applications through Nodal Agency of the District Level Single Window Committee for the allotment of plots. 5. It is also stated that pursuant to the notification of the third respondent, the petitioner submitted his application through Tirupati Notified Industrial Area (Auto Nagar) Service Society, Tirupati for allotment of plot and the said society had forwarded the same to the third respondent along with their recommendation and ‘No objection’ to allot a plot at Auto Nagar. On receipt of the said application and ‘No objection’ from the Nodal Agency, he had been informed by the third respondent herein that his application had been received and that they have forwarded a letter to the competent authority i.e., the first respondent herein vide letter No.Lr.No.1354/A2/2007 dated 04-05-2007 for further action. 6. Further it is stated that the petitioner had paid the initial amount, membership amount etc., which the first respondent had duly acknowledged. He had also made the initial part payment towards land cost and had been waiting for further proceedings. He had also registered as a small-scale industry with the third respondent and obtained the necessary permission from the authorities concerned for setting up a small-scale industry on the plot to be allotted to him. 7. It is also stated that he had been approaching the respondent Nos.1 to 3 personally with a request to take the balance amount towards land cost and register a plot in his favour. On 13-03-2009, when he paid an amount of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) to the first respondent and obtained a receipt for the same, as was required, he was also advised by the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-, which, in fact, he paid on the same day through Andhra Bank Bankers Cheque No.579818 dated 13-03-2009 and handed over the same to the first respondent towards balance amount of land cost. 8. It is further stated that many of the plots were allotted to the members of the society. He had reliably learnt that the respondents are also allotting plots to some third parties, who are not even members in the society, without allotting any plot to him, though he is a member in the society. As stated supra, he is ready to pay the balance amount towards land cost and get it registered in his favour without any delay, if only, he called upon to pay the balance amount and there is only 12 (twelve) plots left out for allotment in S.V. Auto Nagar, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 9. It is also stated that if the left over plots are registered in favour of third parties, the respondents may not have any plots at their disposal to be allotted to a person like him, who is otherwise eligible in every respect. There is no justification in the respondents ignoring his claim for allotment, having received part of the requisite amounts to be paid in this regard. The delay and the inaction of the respondents, and their not considering his claim is highly arbitrary, besides being opposed to principles of natural justice. The said illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents herein is being impugned in the writ petition. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated that the APIIC is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.5-9-58/B, 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fatehmaidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad with Zonal Offices in various places, each one headed by a Zonal Manager. The main objects of the Corporation amongst others are acquisition of lands, development of lands providing with infrastructural facilities into Industrial Area in the State of Andhra Pradesh, allotment of plots/sheds to entrepreneurs in the industrial areas for industrial purposes. The corporation aims at accelerated development of Industries in Andhra Pradesh to facilitate socio-economic progress of the State. 11. It is also stated that the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner does not have an enforceable legal right to maintain the same and ask for issuance of a writ of Mandamus seeking allotment of plot. The petitioner does not have even an inchoate right, much less a crystallized right to ask for the relief sought for in the present writ petition, having merely paid the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and the Process Fee, along with the application form. Mere submission of an application form along with EMD and process fee, does not automatically entail allotment of plot in S.V. Autonagar, as is sought to be projected by the petitioner. The same does not at all constitute advance/part sale consideration and the contention of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the “balance amount towards land cost”, is out of context and untenable, since no amount had been received towards land cost/sale consideration and all the averments made in this connection are false. 12. It is further stated that the petitioner is put to strict proof of his claim that he is a member of Tirupathi Notified Industrial Area (Autonagar Service Society). It is only allottees/tax payers of IALA, who are eligible to become members and not others. The petitioner is not eligible for the same and this statement does not further his claim for allotment of a plot in S.V. Autonagar. 13. It is also stated that APIIC invited applications from Auto Technicians for allotment of vacant plots in S.V. Auto Nagar, duly notifying 31-03-2009 as last date for receipt of applications. Forty- six applications have been received along with the payment of EMD and process fee by 31-03-2009. All these applications have not been received through Single Window Clearance Committee. 14. It is further stated that petitioner filed application on 16-03- 2009, with a recommendation of the President of S.V. Autonagar Association and the petitioner’s statement that he filed application through Tirupathi Notified Industrial Area (Autonagar) Service Society, Thirupathi along with their recommendation and no objection, is not true. 15. It is also stated that the allegation that the petitioner made initial part payment towards land cost and had been waiting for further proceedings is absolutely false and had been invented for the purpose of the present writ petition. No payment was made towards the cost of the land (plot). What was paid by the petitioner was only the EMD and the process fee, that had to be submitted along with the application form. The question of receiving the sale consideration or part thereof at the time of receipt of applications would not arise and it is only in the event of the plot being allotted to an applicant, after scrutiny, that further steps would be taken. The contention that the payment of initial amount, membership amount, etc., had been acknowledged by the first respondent is equally false. 16. It is further stated that contention of the petitioner that he is approaching APIIC personally is incorrect. The petitioner’s statement that he paid Rs.100/- towards balance cost of the land is not correct. It is towards the cost of the application form only, for which a receipt had already been issued to him. He was advised to file the application along with process fee of Rs.1,000/- and EMD at 10% of the cost of the land, as per his requirement of land. His contention that he had been advised to pay Rs.15,000/- towards balance cost of the land, is not true. The demand draft submitted by him is towards EMD and acknowledged by the APIIC vide receipt No.145188, dated 31-03-2009. No amount had been received towards the sale consideration/cost of the land either as an advance or in part, as alleged. 17. It is also stated that plots in Autonagar would be allotted only to Auto Workers and the statement of petitioner that many of the plots were allotted to the members of the society, is not true. To become a member of the society, a person must be an allottee of a plot in Autonagar. It is not clear as to how the petitioner had become a member of the Service Society without allotment of plot in Autonagar. The allegation of the petitioner that the APIIC allotted plots to the third party, who are not even members of the society, is irrelevant and incorrect and does not further the case of the petitioner. 18. It is further stated that only four plots are vacant, but not 12 plots as stated by the petitioner. For taking up of allotment of vacant plots, applications had been invited, as stated supra. Applications received would be scrutinized thoroughly, inspection of their units existing in the town and present status would be done and only thereafter, the applications would be examined by the committee and in terms of the recommendations of the committee, the plots would be allotted with the approval of the head office. 19. It is also stated that only four plots are available for allotment. The applications were invited and 46 applications have been received up to 31-03-2009 and the petitioner is also one of the applicants. The contention of the petitioner that the left over plots are to be registered in favour of third parties is untenable. Further, the statement of the petitioner that the APIIC is ignoring the claim of the applicants in allotting the plots even after the receipt of the part of requisite amounts, is not at all correct. As already submitted part sale consideration was not received at all. The applications could not be considered, in view of the interim orders passed in the writ petition. 20. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner also, in accordance with law relating to the allotment as and when similar applications are being considered. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 10, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.7472 of 2009 February 10, 2010