-Report by Eshna Ray

The Supreme Court in the recent judgement of AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD. VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR., passes required conditions that the Respondent needs to follow for the industrial plot allotment, failure to comply which will have consequences.


The appeals, brought by special leave, concern orders issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by the respondent corporation, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC), which had resumed an industrial plot allotted to the appellant, a proprietary concern, for failing to fulfill the terms and conditions of the allotment. The appellant had applied for the plot in 1994, and possession was handed over in 1995, but no concrete steps were taken to set up the industrial unit on the site. The appellant sought extensions of time, citing the absence of basic infrastructure facilities, but failed to produce any concrete evidence or document to satisfy HSIDC. The NCDRC held that the appellant’s grounds and reasons were vague and evasive and that HSIDC was justified in resuming the plot. These appeals challenge the NCDRC’s orders.


The appellant’s learned counsel, Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, argued that the appellant did not violate any of the terms of the allotment letter and had taken all the necessary steps in accordance with the terms of the allotment letter. The appellant had obtained the required certificate from the Industrial Department, applied for a power connection from the electrical department and deposited the requisite amount with the HSEB, and applied for financial assistance with the Financial Corporation. The appellant had also arranged for the required facilities from outside when they were not granted due to a change in government policy. The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant did not violate any terms of the allotment letter and had taken all necessary steps, including obtaining certificates and applying for power connection and financial assistance. The appellant’s delay was due to government policy changes and not releasing capital. The counsel also contended that the resumption order was issued without granting an opportunity to the appellant and was non-speaking, which violated the principles of natural justice.


In response to Mr. Garg’s arguments, Mr. Sangwan urged the court not to interfere with the NCDRC’s findings. He stated that the record showed that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity and a show cause notice was issued to him asking why he had not taken steps to construct an industrial unit on the plot. He argued that the overall objective of the scheme under which plots were allotted was to promote industrialization and ensure employment, and the persistent inaction of the appellant suggested that he was not interested in using the plot for any industrial activity.

Mr. Sangwan further highlighted that the allotment was based on the appraisal of the project proposed by the applicant and its feasibility, and the appellant was obliged to take swift and timely action towards putting up the unit as per the conditions in the allotment letter. He also argued that the allotment was hedged with several conditions, and many of them, upon violation, entailed cancellation. Therefore, he contended that HSIDC’s action in resuming the plot was not abhorrent or reprehensible.


The case revolves around the appellant’s allotment of an industrial plot by HSIDC and the subsequent cancellation of the allotment. The appellant claims that the cancellation was done without a hearing and violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, the lack of essential infrastructural facilities prevented construction within the stipulated time frame. The allotment had conditions for construction and production, and failure to comply could result in resumption by HSIDC. HSIDC could also call for periodical reports about the project’s progress.

Conditions for the industrial plot allotment included starting construction within six months and completing it within 1 1/2 years, as well as commencing production within two years of possession after constructing a minimum of 25% of the permissible covered area. Failure to meet these requirements would result in HSIDC resuming the plot, and the corporation could request periodic reports every six months about the project’s progress.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3kJn5u9

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *