https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980 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. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:46:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980