Writ jurisdiction cannot reopen a valid resumption order on financial hardship alone absent procedural illegality or natural justice breach.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to reopen a resumption order on equitable grounds alone. Where the allottee defaulted in instalment payments despite repeated notices, service by affixture and an opportunity of personal hearing, and the High Court found no procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice, interference was unwarranted. A plea of financial stringency, without verification or any defect in the statutory process, could not justify setting aside the resumption of the industrial plot. The High Court's intervention was therefore held unsustainable and its judgment liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, could interfere with resumption of an industrial plot and grant relief on the basis of the respondent's plea of financial stringency in the absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The respondent had defaulted in payment of instalments despite repeated notices, service by affixture, and an opportunity of personal hearing. The High Court granted relief on an unverified plea of financial hardship without recording any finding that the statutory procedure was defective or that principles of natural justice had been breached. Writ jurisdiction is confined to judicial review of procedural legality and cannot be used as an appellate power to reopen the merits or to extend benevolent relief on equitable considerations alone.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the resumption order on the plea of financial stringency, and its judgment was liable to be set aside.

---