Ashu Sagar vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 15.09.1992 [P-9] issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula refunding a sum of Rs. 13,750/- deposited by him earlier as Earnest Money towards allotment of Industrial Plot. He also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent - Authorities to issue allotment letter in respect of Industrial Plot No. 253, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Panchkula. The facts may be noticed briefly.

The petitioner is said to have studied Master of Sciences from Cornell University, Berkley, USA. He was desirous of setting up an Industrial unit in Haryana for which he requested the Minister of Housing and Urban Planning for allotment of an industrial plot. The Minister made a favourable recommendation. It is averred that "on the basis of this recommendation by the Minister, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 253, measuring 2 Kanals in Phase II, Industrial Area, Panchkula". The allotment was, however, subject to approval of the Project Report to be submitted by the petitioner to the Industries Department, Haryana.

The petitioner consequently submitted the Project Report along with 25% of the earnest money towards the tentative allotment price of the plot. The petitioner thereafter has been running from pillar to post till the impugned communication was received refunding the above stated amount. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

HUDA has filed its reply inter-alia explaining that an advertisement was issued to invite applications for allotment of industrial plots in the year. 1980-81 and the applications received in response thereto were further placed before the Technical Committee who after going through the merits of each Project made certain recommendations for allotment. The petitioner was not an applicant nor his project came to be considered by such Technical Committee.

The written statement further explains that while the applications received in response to the advertisement were being scrutinised, the then Town and Country Planning Minister, made allotment of 19 industrial plots "using his discretion", though subject to approval of the projects by the Industries Department. The petitioner was one of the beneficiaries of the discretion exercised by the Minister. Since the Project submitted by the petitioner or the policy of the discretionary allotments resorted to by the Minister was not approved, the decision of the Minister was reversed and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was refunded.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record.

It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana and Others, the discretionary allotments if at all were to be banned prospectively only, hence the discretion exercised by the Minister concerned in favour of the petitioner being prior in time is protected.

We are, however, not impressed by the contention. We say so for the reason that the petitioner was not admittedly an applicant in response to a public advertisement which was issued for allotment of industrial plots in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The project of the petitioner was not compared or scrutinised vis-a-vis of other applicants. The discretion exercised by the Minister, with utmost respect, was not in conformity with the duties entrusted to him within the Constitutional frame-work. It was lacking objectivity and transparency both. The cited decision pertains to allotment of residential plots through discretionary quota which were set-aside by a Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, That decision, thus, does not advance the cause of the petitioner, more so when the department was already in the process of making allotment of industrial plots pursuant to a public advertisement.

The delay on the part of the respondent - Authorities in deciding the fate of the petitioner''s application is also not a valid ground to direct the allotment of plot to him at this juncture. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.