IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Inshant Joshi Flat No. 04, Yogmaya Apartment RZ-41 A/9, Krishangarh Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. State Infrastructure & Industrial Deployment Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited Through its Managing Director 2-New Cantt Road Dehradun. 2. Deputy General Manager State Infrastructure & Industrial Deployment Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited 2-New Cantt Road, Dehradun. 3. General Manager, Sigaddi Growth Center Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. ……..Respondents. Shri Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.11.2008 (a copy of which is annexure-4 to the writ petition), noticing the petitioner to start construction work of industry on the allotted plot else the same would be cancelled. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner was allotted plot No. C-49 and C-50 in Sigaddi Growth Centre, Kotdwar, by respondent authority for setting up an industry. 4. As per the tenure of the allotment, the allottee (petitioner) was required to set up complete plant and machinery and commence the production within 24 months. It is also clear from the notice that the lease deed was executed between the parties on 19.05.2006. The respondents have issued the impugned notice to the petitioner on the ground that inspite of expiry of 24 months, the petitioners have not started the production in their unit, as such, allotment/lease, is liable to be cancelled. And by the impugned notice, the respondents have only directed the petitioner to start construction and complete atleast 40% of construction within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice else the allotment would be cancelled. 5. This Court does not find any illegality in the notice. Otherwise also, the petitioner should have given his reply to the authority concerned and this writ petition cannot be maintained against the simplicitor notice. It appears that earlier also several notices were given to the petitioner and in the earlier round of litigation, his writ petition No. 2355 of 2007 (M/S), was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has started its production as the business is of the floriculture, which does not require much construction. These facts can be submitted before the authority concerned by the petitioner. 6. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 8631 of 2008, stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 18.12.2008 Sweta 3.