Failure to Pay Allotment Cost by Court-Mandated Deadline Justifies Automatic Cancellation of Industrial Plot Allotment

The Petitioner, as sole proprietor of ‘Sunny Packers’, applied for an industrial plot under the ‘Relocation Scheme’ in 1996 to shift her unit from a non-conforming area.

On 08.06.1999, she was allotted a 50 sq. mt. flatted factory at Jhilmil Industrial Area.

The Respondent (DSIIDC) raised a demand for payment, which was not met.

In 2013, the Petitioner filed this writ seeking a mandamus for allotment, claiming she never received a cancellation notice and that the DSIIDC website still showed her as "eligible" with a credit balance.

The Respondents contended that the allotment was cancelled in 2001 due to non-payment within the deadline set by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the allotment of an industrial plot despite the non-payment of the cost by the court-mandated deadline.

2. Whether the lack of individual service of a cancellation letter invalidates the cancellation of the allotment in light of public notices.

The court primarily applied the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India*, W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, which mandated that allottees under the Relocation Scheme must complete 100% payment by 31.03.2001 or face automatic cancellation.

The court also applied the principle of constructive notice through public advertisements in national newspapers as a valid substitute for individual communication in large-scale schemes.

Furthermore, the court considered the doctrine of laches and delay, holding that representations do not indefinitely extend the limitation period.

The court found that although the DSIIDC could not produce the specific dispatch register for the 2006 cancellation letter.

The Petitioner’s right to the plot was extinguished by operation of the Supreme Court's order in *M.C. Mehta*.

The Respondents had issued multiple public notices in January 2001 stating that failure to pay by 31.03.2001 would result in cancellation without further correspondence.

The Petitioner only attempted to clear the loan/payments in 2008, seven years past the deadline.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s failure to act within the timeline set by the Apex Court and the subsequent delay of 13 years in filing the petition barred the relief sought.

The "eligible" status on the website was deemed insufficient to override the legal finality of the 2001 payment deadline.

It held that the allotment stood cancelled effective 31.03.2001 due to non-compliance with the Supreme Court-mandated payment schedule, and subsequent requests for floor changes or payments were irrelevant.

The court directed Respondent No. 2 (DSIIDC) to refund the Petitioner’s earnest money deposit (EMD) within six weeks in accordance with the law.