CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8388 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 13, 2009. Parties Name Labotech Instrument Industries ..PETITIONER VERSUS Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Adv., for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate, for the respondent. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT: This writ petition has been filed impugning order dated November 7, 2006 (P-12), vide which an industrial plot, allotted to the petitioner, was resumed. Petitioner has also laid challenge to the order dated March 7, 2008 (P-13), vide which his appeal was dismissed. It is an admitted fact that an industrial plot was allotted to the petitioner on June 17, 2002 (P-1), to set up an industry. Possession was delivered on October 21, 2003. Petitioner was to raise construction within a period of one year from the offer of possession and to start production within three years from the date of offer of possession. Petitioner failed to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8388 OF 2008 -2- raise the construction, as stipulated. Plot was resumed. Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to documents (P-6 and P-7)) has vehemently contended that request for extension of time, to raise construction, made by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent on July 28, 2005. Extension was granted upto September 16, 2005. In this manner, period of less than two months was granted to raise construction. During that short period, it was not possible for the petitioner to get his building plan sanctioned and start the construction. Again he made a request for extension, which was accepted vide letter dated February 1, 2006 (P-7) and extension was granted up to March 16, 2006, again granting a period of less than two months. In view of very less period made available to the petitioner, again the petitioner could not start the construction. Thereafter the plot was resumed by passing the order under challenge. Counsel for the petitioner states that in appeal, all these facts were brought to the notice of the appellate authority. However, none was considered. As is apparent from the contents of the documents Annexures P-6 and P-7, the petitioner was granted very less time to start construction. During that period, it was not even possible to get the building plan sanctioned and collect the material to raise construction. As per terms and conditions in the allotment letter, extension is supposed to be for a period of one year. Despite request, clear period of one year, for raising construction, was not granted. The petitioner is ready and willing to construct on the allotted plot, if sufficient time is given. Counsel argued that the order, passed by the appellate authority being non-speaking one, be quashed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8388 OF 2008 -3- Counsel for the petitioner further averred that so far as putting the unit in operation is concerned, from an alternative plot, the petitioner had also started production. To say so, reference has been made to the documents P-14 and P-15. When notice of motion was issued on May 27, 2008, an undertaking was given by the petitioner that the petitioner shall construct the building, on the plot in question, within a period of one year. This Court feels that may be due to delayed intimation of extension of time, leaving very less period with the petitioner to raise construction, it may not have been in a position to raise building on the plot in dispute. These facts were not considered by the appellate authority while passing order on March 7, 2008 (P-13). In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is partly allowed. Order passed by the appellate authority (P-13) is set aside and directions are issued to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner, as per facts mentioned in earlier part of this order. Petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on August 17, 2009. July 13, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge