a plant of Pressed Glassware. It appears that though the possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on 24.8.1980, but the constructions were not completed in terms of the conditions of contract. Consequently, on 23rd of June, 1983 the allotment in favour of petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner requested for recalling the order of cancellation of allotment on the ground that a unit had in fact been established and some constructions were raised. On the request so made, the plot in favour of petitioner was restored on 30th of August, 1984. Apart from demanding balance premium, the authority also demanded restoration levy. The petitioner again represented in the matter and the authority passed yet another order on 28th of October, 1985 proposing to restore the allotment upon payment of balance outstanding dues together with restoration levy. The petitioner, however, resisted the payment of restoration levy on the ground that such amount was not due and payable in terms of allotment. The plot in favour of petitioner consequently was not restored. Proceedings under the Public Premise Act thereafter were initiated by the Corporation against the petitioner. The correspondence continued between the parties in respect of the petitioner's liability to pay restoration levy. It also appears that some of the premium amount towards plot though was offered to be deposited by the petitioner to the Corporation vide bank draft, but such bank draft were not encashed, as the Corporation was of the view that petitioner's allotment stood cancelled. It is in this background that the petitioner ultimately approached this Court in the year 2012 for issuing a writ of mandamus not to impose restoration levy on the petitioner. This writ petition of the year 2012 remained pending and since the authority intended to take possession from the petitioner, as such, the subsequent writ has been filed in the year 2024. It further transpires that the proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act was not pressed.
