APHC010045942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. M/s.AZAD ISPAT INDIA PRIVATE LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1, 2 OPP S.H. ROAD, BANGALORE AMEER AZAD S/O. M.D. IBR 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED, (APIIC), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APIIC, APIIC TOWERS, 9 FLOOR, PLOT N 522503. 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, , 10TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. CFC GUNTUR-522503. 5. THE ZONAL MANAGER, APIIC, ZO ROAD, ERAMANCHI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 2728/2026 AZAD ISPAT INDIA PRIVATE LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1, 2ND CROSS, BAMBOO BAZAAR ROAD, OPP S.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AMEER AZAD S/O. M.D. IBRAHIM. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 238. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED, (APIIC), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN - 522503. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APIIC, APIIC TOWERS, 9 FLOOR, PLOT No. CFC-1, I.T. PARK, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, , APIIC, APIIC TOWERS, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. CFC-1, I.T. PARK, MANGALGIRI, THE ZONAL MANAGER, APIIC, ZO-PUTTAPARTHY, DUDDEBANDA ROAD, ERAMANCHI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515110. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AZAD ISPAT INDIA PRIVATE LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS CROSS, BAMBOO BAZAAR ROAD, 560002 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED, (APIIC), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APIIC, APIIC TOWERS, 9TH AND 10TH 1, I.T. PARK, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR- APIIC, APIIC TOWERS, 9TH AND 1, I.T. PARK, MANGALGIRI, PUTTAPARTHY, DUDDEBANDA 515110. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.ANIL KUMAR JALDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 3 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, a Company, engaged in Steel-Related Manufacturing activities, was allotted Plot No.212 admeasuring 1334.56 square meters in the A.P.I.I.C. Growth Centre, Hindupur, vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 11.08.2010. 2. Confirming the Provisional Allotment, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) through its Manager (AM) I/c, issued a Final Allotment Letter dated 10.12.2010. The APIIC executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner on payment of consideration and the possession of the said plot was handed over to the petitioner on 15.11.2010. As per the terms of the allotment and agreement, the petitioner was required to implement the industrial project within a period of two years. However, the implementation of the project got delayed due to several reasons, which are set out in the writ affidavit. 3. In view of the delay in setting up the Industry, the APIIC, sought to cancel the allotment, by issuing notices to the petitioner on different dates. The petitioner through it’s replies, while stating the circumstances due to which the Industry could not be established, sought extension of time. Ultimately, vide Proceedings dated 16.09.2025, the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-implementation of the Project. Consequent to the cancellation, a notice of Resumption was issued on 28.12.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed. 4 4. Mr.Tarak Abhilesh, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through online and made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ affidavit and the material filed along with the same. His main contention is that the order of cancellation is bereft of reasons, non-speaking, violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in Law. He submits that the APIIC in respect of similarly situated units / industries is routinely granting extensions, with or without penalties, but in the case of the petitioner, the same benefit is not extended and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that various replies of the petitioner to the show cause notices were not objectively evaluated and an order which does not contain reasons, it is settled position in law, is liable to be set aside. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the APIIC made submissions to sustain the impugned order. She submits that after giving more than adequate time and affording reasonable opportunity, the allotment of plot to the petitioner was cancelled and therefore, the contentions contra are unsustainable. She also submits that as the allotment of plot to the petitioner is conditional, the action of the concerned officers in cancelling the same cannot be found fault with. She submits that there are no merits in the writ petition and seeks dismissal of the same. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 5 7. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of plot to the petitioner, the extent of the same and the notices proposing to cancel the allotment and the reply thereto. However, this Court, deems it not necessary to delve much on the same. Suffice to state that while submitting reply to the notices, the petitioner was simultaneously made applications seeking extension of time for implementation of the project. On a reading of the impugned cancellation order, it would appear that the petitioner initially had not applied for extension of time through online (Single Desk Portal) even on the advice of the Corporation, but ultimately discloses that the petitioner submitted an application seeking extension of time upto 31.01.2026 through online Single Desk Portal. However, the request was not considered. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “vide Reference 20th cited, you have applied EOT through online Single Desk portal upto 31.01.2026. Your requested (sic request) for EOT not considered.” 8. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no reasons as to why the request for extension of time made by the petitioner by considering the circumstances, were assigned. Though the authority concerned is not expected to pass a detailed order, it should reflect the reasons as to why the request for extension of time cannot be considered. It is well settled legal position that reasons are heart and soul of the order.In S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 1 (1990) 4 SCC 594 6 “36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law.” 9. In the light of the above stated legal position, impugned cancellation order is not sustainable and the consequential notice of resumption is also not tenable. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, this order would not preclude the 5th respondent to pass appropriate reasoned order by considering the request for extension of time made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 11.02.2026 BLV 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 2728 of 2026 Date: 11.02.2026 BLV