::1:: APHC010187382019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8055/2019 Between: Steel Exchange India Ltd ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP) 2. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8055 of 2019 This Court made the following ORDER: Brief facts of the case are: 1. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. The petitioner was allotted an extent of 80 acres (comprised in Plot Nos.236 to 243, 250 to 252, 295 to 300, 304, 305, 311 to 316 and 321 to 324, totally 29 plots) in APIIC Growth Centre, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (APIIC). The said allotment was made for the purpose of setting up of an Integrated Mini Steel Plant. A provisional allotment letter dated 06.08.2007 in Lr.No.1161/SEIL/GC/BBL/ZO/VSP/07 was issued by the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Visakhapatnam (presently, the area falls under the control of the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam – R2) ::3:: 2. Pursuant to the provisional allotment letter, the petitioner complied the initial compliances as required, then the 1st respondent issued final allotment letter on 06.11.2007 confirming the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner company, subject to compliance of the other conditions therein. It is further case of the petitioner herein that after compliance of the conditions i.e., payment of sale consideration amount of Rs.3,24,00,000/- the 1st respondent executed a registered agreement of sale dated 13.12.2007 vide registered document No.6068/2007. On the same day after execution of the registered agreement of sale, the physical possession of the entire extent of land was handed over by way of possession certificate dated 13.12.2007. As per Clause 16 of the terms of the provisional allotment as well as Clauses-2 and 8 of Registered Agreement of sale, the petitioner shall complete the subject project of establishment of Integrated Mini Steel Plant within a period of two years from the date of physical possession over the subject property. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the terms of the provisional allotment letter, it is the duty of the 1st respondent to provide the main infrastructural facilities i.e., roads, power supply, water supply and drains to come up the industrial units at subject growth center. But in the case in hand the 1st respondent failed in providing infrastructural facilities as ::4:: promised as per the terms of the provisional allotment and also as per the Registered Agreement of Sale. He further submits that due to the failure on the part of the 1st respondent in providing the main infrastructural facilities i.e., power supply, water supply and Roads the petitioner is unable to implement the project within the stipulated time as envisaged under the terms of provisional allotment as well as Agreement of Sale. 4. In view of the said fact, the 1st respondent extended the time for implementation of the project for a period of 2 ½ years pursuant to the request made by the petitioner 13.12.2009 by imposing penalty till the date i.e., 21.09.2012. 5. The petitioner paid the penalty and made applications / representations to the A.P. TRANSCO for granting power supply and also building permissions / plans to the Director of Factories. Pursuant to the fulfillment of all the conditions the petitioner was granted approval for establishment of Integrated Steel Plant by the Director of Factories on 24.10.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner was also granted pollution clearance certificate for establishment of the said Integrated Steel Plant by the A.P. Pollution Control Board on 10.12.2013. Further, the petitioner was ::5:: also directed by the APEPDCL for payment of charges for extension of HT power supply line to the petitioner on 15.03.2016. 6. He further asserts that pursuant to the representation dated 16.12.2016 and 17.07.2017, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 03.10.2018 extending the time for implementation of the project for one more year i.e., up to September, 2019, subject to payment of penalties of Rs.1,37,18,942/- is contrary to either terms of the Agreement of Sale or terms of provisional allotment dated 06.08.2007. 7. He further submits that the cancellation of allotment and resumption notice dated 21.03.2016 is contrary to the clauses of the provisional allotment letter, whereunder the 1st respondent had promised for providing main infrastructural facilities but so far the main required facilities not yet provided. As such, the impugned cancellation and resumption notice dated 21.03.2016 liable to be set aside. 8. He further submits that demanding an amount of Rs.1,37,18,942/- towards penalty in delay for implementation of the project is not supported by any of the clauses either in Agreement of Sale or provisional allotment and without providing amenities as promised, the implementation of the project by the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, the respondent cannot ::6:: found fault with the petitioner on the ground of non-implementation of the project within the stipulated period and they cannot impose any penalty on the ground of delay in implementation of the project. Therefore, the impugned letter of extension of time with penalty dated 03.10.2018 is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner paid penalty of Rs.1,01,53,114 on 16.11.2012 towards delay for setting up the unit. Having received one time as penalty the respondent cannot repeat the same on the ground of delay in implementation of the project on the part of the petitioner without providing amenities as promised by the respondent. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments 1. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly 1 2. ABC India Ltd., v. APIIC2 3. Unitech Limited vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure3 9. Learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that the Petitioner herein never challenged the cancellation of allotment proceedings dated 21.03.2016 which became final. Any extension of time for implementation of the project is subject to fulfillment of conditions. If the 1 (1986) 3 SCC 156 2 2010(6) ALT 142 3 AIRONLINE 2021 SC 131 ::7:: conditions were not fulfilled by the petitioner, it is deemed that there is no extension of time for implementation of the project. Therefore, cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner is became final in the year 2016 itself. As per Clause-2 of registered agreement of sale, time is essence for implementation of the contract. As per the terms of the provisional allotment as well as Registered Agreement of Sale, the project shall be completed and commenced within a period of two years from the date of delivery of physical possession of the subject property i.e., on 13.12.2007. At the request of the petitioner on 13.12.2009 the period for implementation of the project was extended till 21.09.2012. But even after granted first extension the petitioner did not choose even make applications for required terms and not grounded the project as promised. After waiting so much of time and after having found that the petitioner is disinterested in implementation of the project, having no other option the 1st respondent cancelled the allotment on 21.03.2016 and also issued notice for resumption of subject land. The said cancellation proceedings became final. Without challenging the cancellation proceedings, challenging the proceedings in imposing the penalty for extending the time even it is set aside as long as the cancellation proceedings holds good. The petitioner is not entitled to revive the project as it wished. ::8:: 10. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the respondent not provided main infrastructural amenities as promised is contrary to the proceedings which were filed along with the writ petition. It is evident from the building permissions granted to the petitioner in the year 2013 and approval for setting up of industrial unit by the Director of Factories dated 24.10.2013 and consent / clearance certificate for establishment of Mini Steel Plant by the pollution control board dated 10.12.2013 and as per the letter of the petitioner dated 18.10.2014 indicates that there is 133 KV transmission towers and sub-station situated at Bobbili Growth Centre. More over the letter dated 15.03.2016 issued by the Superintendent Engineer, APSPDCL also indicates that there is an existing power supply to the subject growth center, Bobbili but for extension of HT supply the petitioner was requested for payment of charges for extending the same. 11. He further emphasized that having obtained all the required permissions and after assurance of providing HT lines by the concerned authority, subject to payment of charges, but the petitioner did not choose even to ground the project even after completion of 12 years from the date of allotment of land is nothing but either an act of negligence on the part of the petitioner or the petitioner is unable or incapable to implement the project. Even though, the time is the essence of the contract, but for one reason or ::9:: other the petitioner miserably failed to implement the project within time lines. Hence, the respondent has rightly cancelled the allotment of land and imposed the penalty for extension of time. He further asserts that in view of non-compliance of the conditions for extension of time dated 03.10.2018, the conditional cancellation of allotment is become final and petitioner is not entitled any relief more particularly as prayed for and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 12. Learned Advocate General relied upon the following judgments (1) Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited4 (2) APIIC v. Shivani Engineering Industries5. (3) M/s ECI Engineering & Construction Company Limited vs. APIIC6 13. Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Advocate General representing Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 14. The fact remains that the petitioner was allotted a large extent of land admeasuring Ac.80.00 cents situated at Industrial Growth Centre, Bobbili 4 (2013) 5 SCC 470 5 (2015) 7 SCC 241 6 2012 SCC OnLine AP 402 = (2013) 2 ALD 466 = (2013) 1 ALT 634 ::10:: (comprising of Plot Nos.236 to 243, 250 to 252, 295 to 300, 304, 305, 311 to 316 and 321 to 324, totally 29 plots out of APIIC Growth Centre, Bobbili) Vizianagaram District for establishment of Integrated Mini Steel Plant from outright sale basis and the entire contiguous plot of land was alienated in favour of the petitioner by way of Registered Agreement of Sale dated 13.12.2007 and physical possession was also delivered to the petitioner by way of possession certificate on the same day of alienation i.e., on 13.12.2007. 15. It is an admitted fact that the time is essence of the contract. As per Clause-2 of the Agreement of Sale and clauses 3, 6, 8 and 8(c) indicates that the implementation of the project within the time line and for any extension of time is subject to levying of penalty @ 10% of the land cost at prevailing market rates. No extension for more than 2 years can be granted. For more understanding, Clauses 3, 6, 8 and 8(c) is extracted hereunder: “2. The date and time are the essence of the contract. Clause-3:Only on the party of the Second Part implementing the Scheme and going into commercial production as per the project envisaged in the allotted Plot, the Sale Deed will be executed and registered. Clause-6:The Party of the Second Part shall pay the charges for various servicing and common facilities and also for up-keep and maintenance of roads, water supply, drainage, sewage disposal, street lighting and the like. Clause-8:The Party of the Second Part shall bear, pay and discharge all existing and future amounts, duties, imposing and outgoing of ::11:: whatsoever taxes imposed or charged upon the premises or upon the occupier in respect thereof from the date. Clause-8(c):The Party of the Second Part shall within six months of being put in possession of the said Land commence construction of factory buildings after securing necessary clearances from the component authorities, like building plan approvals, filing application with AP TRANSCO, other permissions/clearances etc., The Party of the Second Part shall go into commercial production duly erecting machinery and obtaining regular power supply connection with TWO years of being put in possession of the allotted Plot/land. 16. As contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner and as per the provisional allotment letter, it is the duty of the 1st respondent that they shall provide main infrastructural facilities i.e., power supply, water supply, roads and drains for grounding the project by the petitioner but due to failure on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner is unable to ground the project is contrary to the facts in hand. It is evident from its own representation / letter for extension of time dated 11.12.2009. It is further observed that at any point of time, the petitioner neither agitated nor complained regarding lack of infrastructural facilities as promised by the 1st respondent either in its representations or letters submitted seeking extension of time for completion of project except in this petition. In fact, on the perusal of the material placed on record i.e., Building, factory, pollution permissions were granted by the concerned authorities, which reveals that all the required amenities for setting up of industrial units were provided at Bobbili growth centre. The ::12:: same were evident from the approval for setting up of industrial unit by the Director of Factories and building permission by the local authority in the year 2013 and granted pollution clearance certificate for establishment of the integrated Steel Plant by the A.P. Pollution Control Board on 10.12.2013 and also for extension of HT line supply to the petitioner for payment of charges by the APSPDCL dated 15.03.2016. Therefore, the entire core contention of the petitioner that the infrastructural amenities as promised by the respondent are not provided is false and untenable and liable to be rejected in view of the facts narrated above. On perusal of the entire material, the petitioner never initiated any steps or tried to ground the project to show its bonafides except getting registered the sale deed in its favour to own the large extent of land appears does not shown any interest in implementation of the project in compliance of the allotment conditions as stated supra. 17. The Rulings relied upon by the petitioner as mentioned above are not applicable to the facts on hand and the petitioner not explained any reasons for the inordinate delay of 12 years in implementation of the project. More over the petitioner failed to comply conditions imposed in letter of cancellation of allotment. ::13:: 18. It is further observed that as contended by learned Advocate General, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the proceedings of cancellation of allotment dated 21.03.2016 but assailing the imposition of penalty for extension of further time i.e., upto September, 2019, which is in violation of the conditions therein the petitioner is not entitled any relief much less as prayed in the petition is valid and sustainable. 19. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose to assail the cancellation of allotment proceedings dated 21.03.2016 which become final. Subsequent extension of time for implementation of the project subject to payment of penalty as per Clause 8(c) of the terms of the agreement as extracted above. In view of non-fulfillment of the same, the cancellation proceedings still holds good. 20. The contention of the learned Advocate General that in view of the violations of the allotment conditions and non-implementation of the project as envisaged were born out of the contractual agreement and more over without challenging the cancellation proceedings and challenging the imposition of penalty, the writ petition is not maintainable is a merit submission and liable to be upheld in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & ::14:: Investment Corporation (Supra 4) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: 11. Per contra, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-company, has submitted that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference whatsoever, for the reason that the respondent-company had been invited to establish and develop the Gem Stone industrial park at Jaipur. In view of the fact, that the amendment to Rule 11-A of the Rules 1959 was made exclusively to facilitate the respondent-company to sub-lease a part of the developed premises, the High Court has rightly held that the State Government became the lessor and that, RIICO had no concern whatsoever in relation to the said matter, owing to which, it had no competence to cancel the lease. In the light of the fact that RIICO was in possession of other lands surrounding the land in question, the High Court has directed it to provide to the respondent-company, an access road on equitable grounds, taking into consideration the fact that, in the event that the respondent- company’s area remained land locked, it would be impossible for it to develop the project, and has stated that not providing the access road was in fact, the basic reason for delay in development. Thus, the appeals lack merit and, are liable to be dismissed. 21. It is evident from the above, that generally the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter-alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal. 25. The phrase, “as is-where-is”, has been explained by this Court in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Ors. v. Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 197, holding as under: “We notice that the respondents had accepted the commercial plots with open eyes, subject to the abovementioned conditions. Evidently, the commercial plots were allotted on “as-is-where-is” basis. The allottees would have ascertained the facilities available ::15:: at the time of auction and after having accepted the commercial plots on “as-is- where-is” basis, they cannot be heard to contend that PUDA had not provided the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. If the allottees were not interested in taking the commercial plots on “as-is-where- is” basis, they should not have accepted the allotment and after having accepted the allotment on “as-is-where-is” basis, they are estopped from contending that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. were not provided by PUDA when the plots were allotted.” (emphasis supplied) 21. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not entitled to levy penalty for extension of time ignoring its duties and promises and found fault with the petitioner in implementation of the project as per time line is not supported by any evidence and it never alleged or agitated about the lack of facilities in its correspondence to the Respondents. Further, levying the penalty is in accordance with clause-8(c) of the terms of Agreement of Sale. In similar circumstances this Hon’ble Court (erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad) ruled in ECI Engineering and Constructions Company (Supra 6) which reads thus: “11. From a perusal of the above clauses, it is manifest that the date and time are the essence of the contract and it is only on implementing the project in the allotted land the sale deed will be executed and registered. Full payment of the cost of land was paid only as a condition precedent to being placed the petitioner in possession of the land allotted. "Implementation" and 'substantial implementation" of the project have clearly been defined in the agreement. Until the project is implemented as detailed in clause 3, petitioner is not entitled for execution of the sale deed. Under Clause 9(m) till such time the ownership of the property is transferred to the petitioner, the property shall continue to remain the property of the APIIC. Clause 9(o) of the agreement clearly provides that if there is any breach of the covenants on the part of the petitioner the allotment stands cancelled and the ::16:: agreement stand determined and the petitioner will be treated as an encroacher and he will have no right whatsoever in the schedule property and the APIIC can make re-entry into the land and resume possession thereof. In the event of cancellation/resumption of the property allotted, the payments made by the petitioner shall remain forfeited towards use and occupation of the premises. However, the APIIC at its option may consider refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner towards cost of the property subject to certain conditions. This discretion on the part of the APIIC is not absolute. The APIIC was given only option to consider such cases in it's discretion. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the agreement of sale does not permit the APIIC to forfeit the sale consideration has no merit. The determination of the agreement of sale made by APIIC by the impugned letter dated 3.13.2003 is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement clearly provides that it is only after due implementation of the project, a sale deed will be executed in favour of the petitioner transferring the ownership of the property and until the same is done, the property continue to vest in APIIC only. 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts on hand. In SUNIL PANNALAL BANTHIA v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD allotment was cancelled on the ground that it was in violation of a public policy. Supreme Court held that on the facts of the case it is not proper to cancel the allotment. NOBLE RESOURCES LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER is a case dealing with the power of judicial review of the Courts in contractual matters. In KAMLAKAR BHIMRAO PATIL v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, the High Court of Bombay on a misconstruction of the prayer in the writ petition that the prayer was for enforcement of specific performance of a contract dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court noticing that the subject matter of challenge relates to repudiation of a contract held that the writ petition is maintainable. The decision of this Court in Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is helpful to the respondents rather than the petitioner, wherein this Court held that having regard to the serious lapses on the part of the writ petitioner therein in not adhering to the terms of the contract, the writ petition does not lie.” (emphasis supplied) 22. As contended by learned Advocate General that the respondent Corporation followed the due procedure as contemplated in terms of the allotment as well as Agreement of Sale and also as per the Rules and ::17:: Regulations of the Corporation in issuing cancellation-cum-resumption proceedings dated 03.10.2018 is observed from the material placed before this Court. The due procedure and the conduct of the respondent corporation was also upheld in APIIC v. Shivani Engineering Industries (supra 5) which reads thus: “24. We have to consider the relevant clauses of the provisional allotment letter, which are extracted as above, particularly, the original allotment of plot was made in favour of the respondent on 20.6.2006 subject to payment of Rs.72,00,000/- within 90 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. Further, clause 7 of the said provisional allotment letter provides if the above said plot cost is not made within 90 days of receipt of the allotment letter the allotment of plot shall stand cancelled and the EMD paid shall remain forfeited by the Corporation. It is an undisputed fact that on 22.9.2006 the allotted plot in favour of the respondent was found to be more than the area mentioned in the provisional allotment letter and the area was revised as 14046 sq. mtrs. as also the cost payable was revised at Rs.84,27,600/- and despite the Corporation extending time for making payment by the respondent till 30.11.2006, the same was not paid. Therefore, the provisional allotment was cancelled by the Corporation for not making the payment within stipulated time. 25. The representation was given on 3.2.2007 by the respondent for restoration of allotment of the plot and the same was accepted by the Corporation by informing the respondent that the restoration of the provisional allotment of plot will be done subject to the payment of total cost of plot with interest on belated payment and penalty of 10% of the land cost at the prevailing rate. The same is the concession given by the Corporation to the respondent as it could not have restored the provisional allotment of the plot as the said restoration of allotment was totally impermissible in law. The concession was made in favour of the respondent by executing the agreement of sale of the plot on 13.3.2007 and the possession of the plot was also given on the same day and within two years from the date of possession of the said plot the project should have been implemented by the respondent. Despite the change of manufacturing activity from mosquito coil to heavy engineering project and bus-body manufacturing unit, the project was not implemented by the respondent within the said period. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the provisional allotment letter and the agreement of sale executed on 13.3.2007 are violated by it, therefore, the Corporation was entitled to ::18:: cancel the allotment of plot and resume the land from the respondent, instead of doing so, the Corporation has again made concession by calling upon the respondent to pay the condonation fee at 3% which is totally impermissible in law. 26. The same was challenged by the respondent taking untenable stand that it is not liable to pay the same in view of the fact that the plot cost with interest on delayed plot cost and 10% penalty has already been paid to the Corporation and the Corporation is not empowered to levy 3% of the land cost as condonation fee for delay in implementation of the revised project. If that condition was not acceptable to the respondent, the only course left open for Corporation was to cancel the allotment and resume the land and allot the same in favour of an eligible applicant in accordance with the rules prevailing in law in this regard by giving advertisement in the newspapers and inviting applications for allotment of the project in public auction, as the property is required to be sold in the above manner to get the market value of the industrial plot in the absence of allotment Rules is the law laid down by this Court in catena of cases. Instead of doing so, the Corporation has proceeded with to issue the demand notice of 3% of the plot cost towards the condonation fee for delay in implementation of the project. The same was not acceptable to the respondent and therefore it has approached the High Court seeking to quash the same contending that the Corporation has no right to demand such fee and therefore, it is not liable to pay condonation fee to the Corporation. 27. The High Court should not have passed the impugned judgment and order quashing the demand notice and giving direction to the Corporation to register the sale deed in respect of the plot in favour of the respondent, undisputedly the respondent has not implemented the revised project within 2 years from the date of agreement though it was put in possession of the plot and granting permission to change the manufacturing activity and extended the period. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside. Liberty is also given to the Corporation to take necessary action to invoke the relevant clauses of agreement of sale to cancel the allotment of allotted plot and resume the same by issuing notice to the respondent. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel Mr. Annam D.N. Rao on behalf of the respondent that the Corporation has extended time in favour of nearly more than 150 similarly placed plot allottees for not implementing the projects within 2 years and extending period by collecting interest and 10% penalty amount on the allotment cost on provisional allotment of land but no condonation of delay fee for non- implementation of the project was levied and collected from them and therefore, the action of the Corporation is arbitrary and discriminatory. ::19:: 28. In view of above submissions, we are of the view that the Corporation is not diligent in disposing of the industrial plots acquired by it in accordance with law in favour of the eligible applicants keeping in view after acquiring the land of the owners for the purpose of the development of industrial estate and allot the same in favour of eligible persons to start industries on the allotted plots to generate employment to provide employment to the unemployed youth in the State. 29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and its officers are very generous in extending time in favour of the allottees for implementing the projects on the allotted plots and not invoking its right for cancellation and resuming the plot for non- compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment letter and agreement and re-allot the same in public auction in favour of eligible persons. Therefore, it is a fit case for this Court to give direction to the CoD of the Telangana State to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter against all the officers who are involved in the cases of allotment of plots and extending the period in favour of the allottees for implementation of the projects for which purpose the plots are allotted and not cancelling the allotments made by the Corporation and resumed the plots and dispose of the same in accordance with law by taking steps. The CoD, Police must investigate the cases in the Corporation and take suitable action in this regard against officers involved in such cases.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. On the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled any relief for the reason that the cancellation of allotment proceedings dated 21.03.2016 became final. The present challenge of the petitioner in respect of subsequent proceedings i.e., extension of time is subject to fulfillment of conditions. Without complying the same, the petitioner cannot plead for revival of the contract. ::20:: 24. For the forgoing reasons as stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 25 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondents are directed to refund the payments made by the Petitioner subject to execution of cancellation of sale agreement and re-delivery of the possession of the subject land as per the terms of the letter dated 21.03.2016 and terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 13.12.2007 and also as per the Regulations of Corporation. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:04.04.2025 krk ::21:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 06 WRIT PETITION NO. 8055 of 2019 Dt: 04.04.2025 krk