Meena Verma vs Haryana State Industrial Develompment Corp.Ltd.

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This writ petition is filed to quash the letter dated 8.7.1994, whereby the letter of Intent dated 17.6.1993 was withdrawn and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to develop and hand over the site of Industrial Plot No. 6263, Phase VI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.

The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `HSIDC'') issue an advertisement calling for applications for allotment of Industrial Plots in Phase VI, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for a plot of 2000 sq. mtrs. for setting up of a Security Printing Unit. Alongwith her application, she also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/ equivalent to 10% of the price of the plot on 31.8.1992. A Letter of Intent dated 17.6.1993 was issued to the petitioner allotting Plot No. 6263 in Phase VI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. In the said Letter of Intent, the petitioner was required to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ which is equivalent to 15 per cent of the price of the plot within a period of 35 days from the date of issue of Letter of Intent. The said period of 35 days expired by 20th of July, 1993 but the petitioner sent a Demand Draft dated 21.9.1993. As the petitioner did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ as required under the terms of Letter of Intent dated 17.6.1993, the HSIDC cancelled the Letter of Intent vide its letter dated 27.9.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 12,590/ representing interest on the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ alongwith the draft for Rs. 2,10,000/. Accordingly the letter dated 27.9.1993 cancelling the Leter of Intent dated 11.6.1993 was revoked and withdrawn by the HSIDC on 5.11.1993, but under the Letter of Intent dated 17.6.1993, the petitioner has to raise the loan against the cost of land and shed from the Financial Institutions within a period of 9 months. As the petitioner did not comply with said terms of the Letter of Intent, the Letter of Intent was again cancelled by the later of the HSIDC dated 8.7.1994.

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the letter dated 8.7.1994, whereby the Letter of Intent dated 17.6.1993 has been cancelled.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 2000 sq. mtrs. bearing No. 6263 in Phase VI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and the Letter of Intent was issued on 17.6.1993. Though under the terms and conditions of Letter of Intent, the petitioner was required to remit 15 per cent of the cost of the land i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/ within a period of 35 days from the issue of Letter of Intent, the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period. Therefore, the HSIDC cancelled the Letter of Intent, but on a representation made by the petitioner on payment of interest on Rs. 2,10,000/ the cancellation of Letter of Intent was revoked and withdrawn by its letter dated 5.11.1993. Under Clause 5 of the Letter of Intent, the petitioner was required to complete the formalities within nine months from the date of Letter of Intent. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the formalities within the said stipulated period of 9 months, Therefore, once again the HSIDC cancelled the Letter of Intent vide impugned order dated 8.7.1994.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that while computing 9 months the period between the date of cancellation of the Letter of Intent and the date of withdrawal of the letter of cancellation should be excluded. But I do not find any factual basis in this contention. There is no term to exclude the period during which the the Letter of Intent was kept in abeyance. In fact, it is because of the fault on the part of the petitioner the letter of Intent was cancelled on 27.9.1993. The cancellation was subsequently revoked on payment of interest on 15 per cent cost of the land i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/ by a letter dated 5.11.1993 i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/. The petitioner cannot take advantage of her own default and seek the exclusion of the time between 27.9.1993 to 5.11.1993. It is fundamental right that a person cannot take advantage of his own default. I am, therefore, not able to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there was no infrastructure facilities for proceeding with the construction for setting up the industry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault for noncompliance of clause5 of the Letter of Intent. But in my opinion, it is not the stage where the setting up of the industry has reached. It is not the case of the petitioner that she required the infrastructural facilities for the compliance of condition No. 5 of the Letter of Intent. Condition No. 5 of the Letter of Intent (Annexure P3) reads as follow:

"In case, you propose to raise loan from HFC/Banks/All India Financial Institutions, you will be required to get the term loan disbursed against the cost of land/shed from the financial institution within a period of 9 months from the date of LOI.

In case you are not able to get the term loan disbursed within 9 months from the date of issue of LOI an extension for a period of 3 months can be given after receipt of a nominal fee @ Rs. 1/ per sq. mtr. per month."

To fulfil this condition, the petitioner does not require the internal road, sewerage system or water connection or external electrification. One can understand and appreciate this contention if the petitioner made all arrangements of setting up the industry, and is not able to proceed with the setting up of the industry because of lack of infrastructure facilities. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the absence of the infra structural facilities. In the letter cancelling the Letter of Intent dated 9.7.1994 vide Annexure P11, it is clearly mentioned as follows:

"As per terms and conditions of LOI, you were required to complete the formalities within a period of 9 months by raising loan from the financial institutions i.e. upto 16.3.1994. As you had sought extension upto 10.6.1994 to complete the formalities of Letter of Intent, the said period has expired, but you have failed to complete the formalities of Letter of Intent within the extended period. As such you have contravened the terms of allotment. Hence the above mentioned Letter of Intent is hereby withdrawn."

It is thus clear that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent even within the extended period. Therefore, she cannot take advantage of her own fault and complain that there were no infrastructural facilities so as to enable her to set up the industry.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was discriminated as extension was given in favour of the brother of a State Minister, whereas the same was denied to her. But no material has been placed before me under what circumstances the extension of time was granted to another allottee. Further as can be seen from the averments made in the writ petition itself, the extension in favour of Surinder Mohan, the brother of the State Minister was granted for the purpose of making construction within the period of 3 years as stipulated under the contract. That was a case of setting up the unit itself for want of infrastructural facilities. It is not a case of noncompliance of the terms of the Letter of Intent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case of Surinder Mohan stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no discrimination.

In view of my above discussions, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to the dismissed.

The result is, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.