10 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1374/2022 M/s Sheikh Copper Industries and Ors. ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. M A Thakur, Adv. V/s Union Territory of J&K & Ors ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahangir Dar, GA Mr. Zaid Qyas Noor, GA Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge. ORDER 03.01.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought a direction upon the respondents to restore/ revive/revalidate the allotment pertaining to the half of kanal of land made in favour of the Units held by the petitioners at Industrial Estate Khanmoh for establishment of their Units. Further direction has been sought upon the respondents that they should not initiate any recovery proceedings against them till the revival of their Units. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the Presiding Officer Bank Court, Srinagar to stop the recovery proceedings in the suits filed against them. Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43 P a g e | 2 WP(C) No. 1374/2022 2. A perusal of the pleadings filed by the parties reveals that pursuant to the applications made by the petitioners after getting their Units registered, they were allotted and half kanal of land in Industrial Complex, Khanmoh, Srinagar for setting up their Units. This was done in terms of the allotment orders dated 24.08.2010. Pursuant to the allotment of the land, lease deeds were executed between the petitioners and J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Limited in the month of December, 2010. It also appears that upon allotment of the land in favour of the Units held by the petitioners, J&K Bank sanctioned loan in their favour in the month of November, 2010. In the month of January, 2011, building permission for construction of the structures from the allotted land was granted by the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation in favour of the petitioners. 3. Record and the pleadings filed by the parties also reveal that the petitioners could not make their Units operational as a result whereof the respondent Corporation was compelled to issue cancellation notices in respect of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. These notices were issued to the petitioners on various dates between the years 2011 to 2013. Ultimately, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners were cancelled on various dates in the year 2013. It also appears that the recovery Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43 P a g e | 3 WP(C) No. 1374/2022 proceedings by way of civil suits have been filed against the petitioners by the J&K Bank. 4. The petitioners have submitted that after they raised infrastructure by constructing building on the allotted plots of land, devastating floods took place in the year 2014 as a result of which they could not make these Units operational. It is being further submitted that in the year 2016, unrest took place in whole of the Valley, whereafter in the year 2019, law and order situation became precarious post Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that another reason for not operating the Units was COVID-19 Pandemic which happened in the year 2020. According to the petitioners, they made representation before the respondents making a request for revival of their Units and for rederessal of their grievances on 28.12.2020, copy whereof has been placed on record, but the said representation has not been considered by the respondents. It has been further pleaded that in case of similarly situated Units, the respondents have extended help by reviving the said Units. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 6. As per the allotment letter which is identical in the case of each of the petitioners, a promoter has to take effective steps within a Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43 P a g e | 4 WP(C) No. 1374/2022 period of six months from the date of registration of lease deed otherwise the allotment is liable to be cancelled. It is specially stated in the allotment order that in case of violation of any norms the promoter will be solely responsible for the cancellation of the said allotment. In the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have been unable to make the Units operational. 7. The allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 2010. Permission to raise structure on the land was given in the year 2011 whereas the loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner Units in the year 2010. They could not establish their Units and make them operational even prior to the devastating floods of 2014. The record shows that prior to the floods of 2014, their allotment had already been cancelled by the respondents after issuing show cause notice to them. The respondents have placed on record copies of the show cause notices issued to the petitioners as well as postal receipts which indicate that these show cause notices have been served upon the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners have not disputed the receipt of these show cause notices. Once the allotment of the petitioners was cancelled prior to year 2014, the subsequent events like floods of 2014, unrest of 2016, Abrogation of Article Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43 P a g e | 5 WP(C) No. 1374/2022 370 of Constitution and COVID-19 Pandemic does not have bearing on the present case. 8. The contention of the petitioners that in similar case the respondents have extended the benefits of revival of the Units is also without any substance. The copy of the communication dated 15.10.2018 which has been placed on record nowhere provides that it pertains to the revival of any Unit. 9. Apart from the above, it appears that the petitioners have been in deep slumber inasmuch as they have made a representation to the respondents as late as in the year 2020 when their allotments were cancelled way back in the year 2013. It seems that when the Bank started recovery proceedings against the petitioners, they chose to file the instant writ petition. This is clear from the nature of the reliefs sought in the petition. Thus it is a belated resort to writ proceedings made by the petitioners, which is bound to fail. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 03.01.2025 Aasif Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43 P a g e | 6 WP(C) No. 1374/2022 Asif Gull I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.01.2025 03:43