Judgment:
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
1. The petitioner Megha Aluminum Industries was allotted an industrial plot measuring 4000 Sq. Mtrs at Kaladera Industrial Area on certain terms and conditions which envisaged deposit of development charges also from the allottees at the rate prevalent from time to time. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards development charges since the respondents Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO for short had revised the rate of development charges from Rs. 60/- per eq. Mtrs to Rs. 80/- per Sq. Mtrs. with effect from 1.4.1996. The petitioner admittedly failed to deposit this amount as a result of which even as per his own averment, a show cause notice dated 14.11.1996 was issued to him informing him that he had to deposit 75% amount within 90 days of the allotment after which the sale-deed had to be registered. The petitioner was requested to submit his explanation within 30 days regarding the reasons for non-compliance of the required deposit towards development charges.
2. The petitioner did riot respond to this letter as per the respondents, but the petitioner asserts that he had verbally explained that unless basic facilities for instance power, water and roads were provided, he was not required to respond to the demand notice. However, it is admitted that no explanation in writing was ever offered to the respondents. Consequently, an order was passed by the Corporation on 22.2.1997 canceling the allotment and a letter of communication was sent on 9th April 1997 returning the amount deposited by the petitioner after necessary deduction.
3. The petitioner, therefore, thought it proper to file this writ petition challenging the order of cancellation interalia on the ground that he was under no obligation to respond to the demand notice unless the land was developed. Further grievance was raised that he was not granted a fair opportunity of explaining his position prior to cancellation of allotment of the plot. Relying on these averments of the petitioner, the respondents were called upon in this Court to explain the circumstances for passing the order of cancellation of the plot and from the reply to the writ petition as also after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents Shri Raghav it could be noted that since the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount towards development charges within the prescribed time and committed default of the conditions of allotment started raising objection that basic facilities were not provided before raising such a demand. The petitioner's counsel while taking this plea, seems to have completely lost sight of the fact that the demand which was raised for the plot from the petitioner, itself was for development charges which was clearly in consonance with the terms and conditions of allotment clearly implying that facilities would be provided after deposit of the development charges. Therefore, to contend, that basic facilities should have been provided even before development charges were paid, is clearly devoid of force. In so far as the other plea in regard to denial of opportunity of show cause prior to passing the order of cancellation is concerned, the same also is without any substance, since the petitioner even as per his own averment in the writ petition had been issued a letter in the nature of show cause notice on 14.11.1996 which called for an explanation from the petitioner regarding non-deposit and also informed him about the consequence in the event of default. The petitioner's explanation that he orally responded to that notice by demanding proper facilities cannot be treated as having responded to the show cause notice and even if it be correct, the explanation on the face of it was fit to be rejected, since the demand raised was for development of the land which was to be deposited prior to allotment as per the terms and conditions of allotment as already indicated herein before.
4. The order of cancellation of allotment, therefore, does not call for any interference of this Court and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed.