Kuldip Singh Bagga vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner in responose to an advertisement issued applied for the grant of a one acre of plot for S.A.S. Nagar Mohali under a scheme known as "Off the Shelf Allotment Scheme" on 29.8.1986 along with requisite earnest money of Rs. 2000/. The application of the petitioner was scrutinized and vide letter dated 15.10.1986, from the Director of Industries, Punjab, to the petitioner, appended as Annexure P1 to the petition, it was stated as under :

"Reference your application dated 29.8.1986 under the "Off the Shelf Allotment Scheme".

You have been allotted a plot of 1 Acre (size) at Focal Point S.A.S. Nagar and necessary intimation sent to the Punjab State Small Industries and Export Corporation. You are advised to contact the Chief Engineer of the Corporation for further action in this behalf to issue of letter of intent.

As per the advice given in Annexure P1, the petitioner, on 24th October, 1986, vide Annexure P2 wrote to the Chief Engineer of the respondentCorporation that he was willing to accept the plot either in Mohali or in Ludhiana as suggested by the respondentCorporation. This offer was reiterated vide Annexures P3 to P6 but despite this no action was taken by the respondentCorporation nor any communication received. It has been averred that it was for the first time on the 18th January, 1990, that the respondentCorporation informed the petitioner vide Annexure P7 that the Scheme under which the allotment had been made had been discontinued. The petitioner has impugned Annexure P7 by way of the present writ petition.

The primary stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that although he had fulfilled all the requirements for the allotment of a plot and the plot, in fact, had been allotted as per Annexure P1, yet only the further formalities such as physical allotment of the plot by way of identification was left to the respondentCorporation. It has also been asserted in para 9 of the petition that the petitioner was one of the first allottees for plots under the Scheme and a number of persons who had applied subsequently had, in fact, been granted lots. It has been asserted that after allotment vide Annexure P1, the petitioner had spent a considers amount of money is sending his Technicians abroad for training for the purposes of setting up an industrial unit in the hope that the possession of the plot in question would be given to the petitioner and, as such, the respondentCorporation was bound by the principles of promissory estoppel and could not deny a plot to the petitioner.

In reply to the aforesaid averments, the stand taken by the respondentCorporation is that the letter Annexure P1 was only an offer and not a letter of allotment and this was to be issued by the respondentCorporation only after the requisite conditions set out in the letter of intent which had not been given to the petitioner, had been satisfied. It has also been asserted that as the number of plots available for allotment under the scheme were limited, it was left to the respondentCorporation to adopt a policy to pick and choose so as to give plots to more suitable and meritorious applicants.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I find merit in the petition. It is to be seen from Annexure P1 that a plot had been allotted to the petitioner although a further stipulation had been laid down that the petitioner was required to contact the Chief Engineer of the Corporation for the issuance of a letter of intent. It is also clear that in pursuance of Annexure P1 the petitioner wrote a number of letters to the respondentCorporation and also made personal visits to its office for the formal allotment of the plot but no action was taken in that regard. Mr. Rajiv Mittal''s argument that as the letter of intent had not been issued, no right could be created in favour of the petitioner, is without basis as it was for the respondentsCorporation to neither issue the letter or to deny to the petitioner within a reasonable time, but either of these two things were done. It needs reiteration that the petitioner made repeated requests for the formal grant of the plot but no reply was received from the respondentCorporation. It also appears to me that the action of the respondentCorporation in denying the plot to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary. It has not been denied in reply to the assertion made by the petitioner that he was one of the first applicants for the allotment of a plot but persons who applied later were favoured and given the allotments. Undoubtedly, it was for the respondentCorporation to determine the number of plots that were to be allotted but in case a formal allotment was to be denied to the petitioner, some appropriate reasons should have been spelt out and that too within a reasonable time. The State authorities while dealing with the public must exercise their power in a proper and just manner and a whimsical or cavalier attitude must be scrupulously avoided.

In view of what has been stated above, no finding needs to be recorded on the other points raised by the counsel for the parties. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed; Annexure P7 qua the petition is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondentCorporation to issue a letter of intent to the petitioner and if he satisfies the conditions set out therein, issue a formal letter of allotment in respect of a one acre of plot either in S.A.S. Nagar Mohali or in Ludhiana on the terms and conditions which were applicable to the Scheme as originally formulated. The letter of intent will be issued to the petitioner within a period of one month from today and the entire consideration of the case will be completed within a period of three months thereafter. There will be no order as to costs.