' industrial plot in Korangi Township Industrial Area for a textile mill on 21-2-1964 by the K.D.A., respondents in this Petition. According to the petitioner, he had completed all the formalities required to be complied with and the site plan of the plot was also approved. According to the terms of allotment, the construction on the plot had to be commenced within 6 months and the industrial unit was required to start operation within 2 years. Admittedly, this had not been done although, according to the petitioner, a boundary wall had been raised and a Chowkidar Room had been constructed and some machinery had also been installed, but neither the building was raised nor the industrial unit started its operations within time. According to the petitioner, due to lack of facilities, construction could not be raised and the Textile Mills started within time.
' On 10-2-1975, a show-cause notice was issued by the K.D.A. To the petitioner, stating that as the petitioner had failed to raise construction on the plot within the stipulated time, cause should be shown within a fortnight as to why his allotment order be not cancelled. According to the petitioners, a reply dated 6-3-1975 was sent by the petitioner to the K.D.A. In which it was mentioned that due to unavailability of water, he was unable to raise construction and as soon as water connection became available, building will be completed. Photo copy of acknowledgment due card alleged to have been signed on behalf of the K.DA. Acknowledging the reply dated 6-3- 1985 has been tiled, although the K.DA. In its counter-affidavit has denied that any reply was given.
In any case, no communication was received from the K.D.A. For 9 years. On 17-4-1984, the order of cancellation of the plot was passed by the K.D.A. By the letter dated 17-4-1984, the K.D.A. Informed the petitioner that since the petitioner had failed to reply to the show-cause notice dated 10-7-1975 within the specified period and as reply had not been received, the plot allotted to the petitioners was cancelled. The cancellation order is impugned in the present constitution Petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Mohammad Islam Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.H.
Kizilbash, learned counsel for the K.D.A.
' According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a reply to the show-cause notice had been given and apparently the K.DA. Was satisfied with the reply as otherwise action for cancellation of the allotment would have been taken much earlier and the impugned Order passed after 9 years is a mala fide exercise of power. Mr. Kizilbash, learned counsel for the K.D.A., on the other hand, submitted that no reply was received and as there is an admitted violation of the terms of allotment, the K.D.A. Had adequate powers to cancel the plot though such cancellation has taken place after 9 years. According to the learned counsel for the K.DA. Delay in passing of the cancellation order does not make the impugned order a nullity.
3. We are surprised that for a long period of 9 years from 1975 to 1984 no action was taken by the K.D.A. If a show-cause notice had been given and whether a reply was received or not, it was expected that adverse action, if required to be taken in the circumstances, would be taken within a reasonable period of time. No time limit can be fixed for passis a consequential order after a show- cause notice has been given to which a reply has been received or there is no response. It all would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the show-cause notice had been given on 10-2-1975. Petitioner states that he had given a reply on 6-3-1975. K.D.A. Has taken up the position that no reply had been received. As observed earlier, even if the stand taken by the K.D.A. Is accepted that no reply had been received, action for cancellation of the said plot on the basis of the show-cause notice dated 10-2-1975 was required to be taken within a reasonable period of time. In this case, a period of 9 years elapsed before the cancellation order was passed.
The memo of petition and the counter-affidavit confirm that during this period of 9 years, no further notice, letter of communication was sent by the K.D.A. To the petitioner. During this period a building was constructed on the plot, according to the petitioner. Photographs filed by the petitioner show that some machinery has also been installed. If for several years no further action was taken by the K.D.A. And in the meantime construction has been raised and some machinery installed without any objection or hinderance on the part of K.D.A. It can be presumed that the show-cause notice dated 10-2-1975 had become ineffective and infructuous. If at all after 9 years, the K.D.A. Wanted to take any action, a fresh show-cause notice should have been given and after considering the reply to such fresh show-cause notice, further action could have been taken.
Cancellation order on such ineffective notice is illegal.
4. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and it is declared that the order of cancellation of the plot dated 17-4-1984 has been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The K.D.A. Is, however, free to issue a fresh show-cause notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner, if any, fresh action can be taken in the matter. There will be no order as to costs.
1