APHC010417432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 22526 OF 2026 Between: 1. LAKSHMI METALLURGY LIMITED, Office at No. 118, Alloy House, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore, represented by its Director, V Prabhakar, S/o K Varadappa, No. 1956/82, 8TH E Main, 2ND Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka State.- 560010. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Industries AND Commerce Velagapudi, Guntur District. - 522301. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. - 522503. 3. The Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd Mangalagiri, Guntur District. - 522503. 4. The Chief General Manager AM, A.P Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. - 522503. 5. The Zonal Manager, A P Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd Industrial Park, Renigunta Road, Settipalli (P.O), Tirupathi, Chittoor District. - 517506. 2 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ declaring the action of the 5TH Respondent in issuing proceedings NO.7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 22-07-2026, cancelling the allotment of land made to the Petitioner in Plot Nos.65 to an extent of issuing Ac.3.33.cts or 13488.00 Sq. Mts, at Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam in Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Tirupathi District ( erstwhile Chittoor District (AP), and consequential resumption notice of the 5th Respondent bearing No.7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 03- 08-2026, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of Natural Justice, non- application of mind and contrary to Article 14, 19(g) of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 22-07-2026 and 7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 03-08-2026, issued by the 5th Respondent, by also directing the Respondents No.2 to 4 to issue NOC/Sale Deed, for the land stated supra to enable the petitioner to complete the phase 2 of the project and commence regular commercial production IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend Resumption order vide proceedings 7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007 dated 03.08.2026 issued by the 5th the Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the cancelation orders vide No. 7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/ 2007, 3 dated 22- 07-2026, cancelling the allotment of land made to the Petitioner in Plot Nos. 65 to an extent of Ac.3.33.cts or 13488.00 Sq. Mts, at Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam in Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Tirupathi District ( erstwhile Chittoor District (AP), issued by the 5th Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petitio IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 to issue NOC/ Sale Deed pertaining to Plot Nos. 65 to an extent of Ac.3.33.cts or 13488.00 Sq. Mts, at Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam in Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Tirupathi District ( erstwhile Chittoor District (AP), forthwith to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE The Court made the following order: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 22526 OF 2026 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings No.7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 22.07.2026, cancelling the allotment of land made to the Petitioner in Plot No.65 to an extent of issuing Ac.3.33 cents or 13488.00 Sq. Mts, at Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam in Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Tirupathi District (erstwhile Chittoor District (AP), and consequential resumption notice of the 5th respondent bearing No.7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 03.08.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of Natural Justice, non-application of mind and contrary to Article 14, 19(g) of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings No.7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 22.07.2026 and 7406/ZO/TPT/66/IP/GMD/2007, dated 03.08.2026, issued by the 5th respondent, by also directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue NOC/Sale Deed, for the land stated supra to enable the petitioner to complete the phase 2 of the project and commence regular commercial production and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted a plot No.65 by way of provisional allotment dated 02.02.2009 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions envisaged thereunder. As such, the petitioner would be entitled to hold entire property subject to allotment conditions. He further submits that pursuant to the allotment of the subject plot, the petitioner has been taking steps from time to time for implementation 5 of project as per the terms of the allotment. While so, respondent No.5 issued a show-cause notice dated 06.03.2020 alleging that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the allotment and trying to cancel the subject allotment. For which, the petitioner had submitted its detailed reply/explanation on 03.04.2020. After submission of the said reply/explanation, the respondent Corporation kept quiet for a period of six years. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, without giving any intimation and without issuing any further proceedings or notice, after six years, the respondent-Corporation issued the present cancellation orders unilaterally on 22.07.2026 and consequential resumption order is also issued on 03.08.2026 fixing a date i.e., 11.08.2026 for taking the possession of the property, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also the due procedure as contemplated under the Act. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the petitioner submitted a reply/explanation in the year 2020, without considering the same and without passing any speaking order, after lapse of six years and directly issuing present impugned proceedings is certainly amounts to an action of colourable exercise of power and arbitrary in nature and liable to be interdicted. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel furnished written instructions dated 10.08.2026, wherein it is specifically stated as follows: 6 “18. Thus, it is evident that the allottee has failed to implement the project within the stipulated time/EOT period and kept the land without any activity except constructed Shed long back in the allotted extent and also failed to implement the unit. 19. The Head Office vide reference 20th cited, has examined and approved for cancellation of allotment, since the allottee has not implemented the unit within the stipulated time, and violated the terms and conditions of Allotment letter and Sale Agreement. Hence, vide reference 21st cited, cancellation of allotment orders has been issued in favour of M/s. Lakshmi Metallurgy Ltd., and requested to surrender the vacant possession of the land within (15) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which necessary action will be initiated for resumption of possession of the land. The allottee has failed to surrender the vacant possession of the land to the Corporation. 20. Hence this office vide reference 22nd cited, has issued resumption orders were issued to the allottee to surrender the vacant possession of the plot to the Corporation on or before 11.08.2026 failing which the possession of the plot will be resumed without any prior intimation in this regard on 12.08.2026 at 4.00 PM by conducting Panchanama.” 6. She further submits that the entire action already initiated by the respondents is in accordance with the terms of the allotment. Since the petitioner is not implementing the project even after lapse of more than one and half decade, due to which the entire property of the respondent became idle without there being any employment as promised. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to cancel and resume the land in accordance with law. 7 7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. In fact, the petitioner was provisionally allotted the subject plot No.65 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents in the year 2009 itself subject to fulfillment of the conditions and implementation of the project as proposed by the petitioner. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-implementation of the project by the petitioner is not only at the fault of the petitioner but also due to the other factors to be provided by the respondents i.e, infrastructure and other amenities. Whereas, pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 06.03.2020 issued by the respondents, the petitioner duly submitted an explanation on 03.04.2020 and it seems that the respondents did not consider the same and passed any appropriate orders within a reasonable time as envisaged, but after lapse of six years issuing the present cancellation of the allotment orders of the petitioner is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and arbitrary due to lapse of time and not passing of any speaking order pursuant to the explanation dated 03.04.2020 as submitted by the petitioner. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel regarding violation and non-implementation of the project by the petitioner after lapse of one and half decade should be considered but not at the cost of principles of natural justice and fair and reasonableness. Therefore, the respondent authorities are at liberty to exercise their powers subject to observation of principles of natural justice, fair and reasonableness and procedure as contemplated under law. In the instant case, it is found that the respondents issued the impugned proceedings hastily 8 and contrary to the principles of natural justice as observed above as well as the procedure as contemplated under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned cancellation proceedings dated 22.07.2026 as well as consequential resumption orders dated 03.08.2026 are lack of observation of settled principle of law, administration, natural principles as well as procedure as contemplated under the law. 8. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned cancellation proceedings dated 22.07.2026 and consequential resumption order dated 03.08.2026. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further and to take appropriate action as per the terms of the allotment as well as in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:10.08.2026 TPS 9 104 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 22526 OF 2026 Date:10.08.2026 TPS