Anand Kumar Dalmia vs State of Haryana

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to a communication dated 5.5.1993 (Annexure P.17), whereby the provisional letter of allotment allotting plot No. 88, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, to the petitioner was withdrawn for the reason that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions of allotment.

The petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot measuring 1000 square metres in the Industrial Estate, Udyog Vihar on 13.10.1989 along with 10% of the total money to be paid i.e. Rs. 59,500/-. The proposed project of the petitioner was of Rotational Moulding Plant for plastic tanks for storage of water and liquids. In the application form Para 5(e) was to the effect that the finances for the project will be partly from the Haryana Financial Corporation, Commercial Banks and own money. On 16.7.1991, it was decided to earmark 1000 square metres plot for the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to pay another sum of Rs. 89,250/- to make the same approximately 15% of the cost of the plot. The petitioner remitted the amount. However, the petitioner was communicated the incidence of enhanced cost @Rs. 185/- per square metres. The first installment of the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- amounting to Rs. 46,250/- was payable within 35 days of the issuance of the letter dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P.4). The petitioner did deposit the aforesaid amount.

It was on 11.9.1991, a provisional letter of allotment was issued acknowledging that a sum of Rs. 1,48,750/- towards the tentative cost of the plot had been received and the balance 75% was to be paid in five equated installments along with interest. However, before the final letter of allotment was issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to comply with the following requisite formalities:-

(i) Registration with the General Manager of the District Industries Centre concerned (for medium scale unit, registration/Letter of Intent from the Director General, Technical Development (DGTD)/Govt. of India).

(ii) Approval of drawings of the unit from the Senior Town Planner/Divisional Town Planner concerned; copy of the zoning plan of the plot required for the preparation of detailed drawings may be obtained from the office of DTP concerned.

(iii) (a) Arrangement of finance by getting the loan required to meet the cost of land, building & machinery sanctioned from Haryana Financial Corporation/any scheduled Bank/State & All India Financial Institutions.

or

(b) In case of self-financing of the project, proof regarding availability of liquid resources to meet the total cost of project be furnished.

(iv) List of Plant & Machinery to be installed alongwith quotations.

The petitioner was called upon to convey his acceptance within 35 days of receipt of the provisional letter of allotment, which was to remain valid for a period of 90 days in case the project was to self finance and 180 days in case, the petitioner proposed to raise the loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation/Banks/All India Financial Institutions. The petitioner committed his acceptance on 4.10.1991, but the compliance in terms of the conditions could not be made even though the period of compliance was extended for a period of three months from 11.3.1992 to 10.6.1992 vide communication dated 9.3.1992 (Annexure P.9). It was on 10.6.1992, the petitioner communicated that he had applied for loan to the Haryana Financial Corporation, but in the alternative also asserted that in case of delay or non sanction of the loan, he would finance the project from his own funds or funds to be raised from relatives and other well wishers. On 6.7.1992 (Annexure P.11), the petitioner was informed that he had not completed the requisite formalities; therefore, he can seek extension for three months on deposit Rs. 3000/- as extension fee within a period of 15 days. The petitioner did make the request for extension on 9.7.1992 along with sum of Rs. 3000/-, but for a period of six months i.e. upto 10.1.1993. It appears that extension was granted for three months, which is evident from the communication of the petitioner dated 7.9.1992 (Annexure P.13), wherein the petitioner acknowledged that time for completion of formalities was extended upto 10.9.1992. The petitioner also sent another sum of Rs. 3000/- for extension. On 29.10.1992 (Annexure P.15), acknowledgement was sent in respect of the letter of extension of time, but information was sought as to the name of the financial institution, where the loan application was pending. It was again on 9.11.1992, the petitioner sought extension for another six months. But on 5.5.1993 (Annexure P.17), the provisional letter of allotment was withdrawn for the reason that the petitioner now sought to change option for raising of loan to self financing for setting up of a unit. Since the admissible period for self finance was 90 days, the request of the petitioner was not considered and therefore, the provisional letter of allotment stood automatically withdrawn.

In the writ petition, the stand of the petitioner was that there was a mistake in the communications exchanged. In certain communications the allotment was said to be in Phase-V, whereas in certain other communications it was said to be Phase-IV. The petitioner has also produced the noting of the respondent-Corporation dated 16.11.1992, wherein it is mentioned that in one of the communications there was erroneous mention of Phase-V, which was corrected subsequently. The argument of the petitioner is that it was the said mistake, which delayed the sanction of the loan from the financial institution. It is also pointed out that on account of the confusion about the location of the plot, the petitioner opted for self financing, which should have been accepted by the respondents. The petitioner has taken all reasonable steps within his control for completion of the formalities, but because of the mistake of the respondent-Corporation, rights of the petitioner cannot be jeopardized.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and do not find any merit in the present writ petition.

The provisional letter of allotment was issued on 11.9.1991. The categorical stand of the petitioner in his application for allotment of plot was of raising the loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation, Commercial Banks and also his own money. In terms of the provisional letter of allotment, there were different periods prescribed for complying with the conditions of provisional letter of allotment i.e. 90 days in case of self financing and 180 days in case, the loan is proposed to be availed. The purpose of such condition is that an allottee is able to start industry expeditiously and not that he holds on the plot without undertaking the industrial activities. The petitioner opted for loan from the financial institution. It was on 10.6.1992, the petitioner asserted that he had applied for loan, but he was also ready to opt for self financing. Even at that point of time, the petitioner was not categorical whether he wanted to go for the financial assistance or self financing. The petitioner had sought extension for a period of six months on 7.9.1992 (Annexure P.12). The petitioner again sought extension for six months on 9.11.1992. Since the petitioner failed to complete the formalities regarding the sanction of loan, the provisional letter of allotment has been rightly withdrawn.

We find that since the provisional letter of allotment was in respect of a plot located in Phase-IV and other communications also categorically deal with the plot located in Phase-IV. The location of plot in Phase V in two communications i.e. Annexures P.9 and P.11 is an inadvertent mistake. There was never any doubt regarding the location and/or size of the plot. The plot number continues to be same and the size. Therefore, it is an excuse devised by the petitioner to shift the burden on the respondents to hide his inability to take a categorical decision as to whether he wanted to go for self financing or financial assistance. Since the parameters for both were different, the petitioner had to adopt one mode. Having failed to comply with the formalities for a period of almost 18 months, we do not find that the withdrawal of the provisional letter of allotment can be said to be illegal or unsustainable.

We may notice that the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 11094 of 1996-Preeti Batra and another v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and another, decided on 30.5.1997, whereby withdrawal of provisional letter of allotment was set aside for the reasons that non starting of the projects were found to be justified in the facts of the aforesaid case. It is an order based upon the facts of the said case without opining upon the principles of law. Another judgment referred to by the petitioner i.e. Hukam Chand Chauhan Vs. Haryana State Industrial Corporation, is again rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, where the petitioner was permitted to opt for self financing once he came to know that he was not able to raise loan from the financial institution. In the aforesaid cases, without considering the resources of the petitioner, the letter of allotment was withdrawn.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in LPA No. 1434 of 2011 titled as M/s. Pharma Labs (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 9.1.2012, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others, it was held that since the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions, no binding and concluded contract came into force as the letter of allotment was to be issued only on compliance of the conditions mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment. The conditions in the provisional letter of allotment were required to be complied with before the regular letter of allotment could be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has not satisfied the conditions of provisional letter of allotment itself. Once, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of provisional letter of allotment, the petitioner lost right to claim issuance of regular letter of allotment as the letter of allotment was dependent upon the compliance of the conditions mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment. The petitioner, who failed to comply with the conditions for a period of 18 months is not aiding the State for the industrialization purposes of allotment of the plot.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.