Prateek Industries vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and Another

Viney Mittal, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition challenging order dated March 3,2006 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). The facts which emerge from the record show that the petitioner had applied for an industrial plot measuring 1000 sq. metres and had deposited an amount of Rs. 45,000/- by way of application money on November 16,1996. A letter of intent was issued by the respondent- Corporation on September 8,1997 and plot bearing No. 194, Sector- 3, measuring 525 sq. metres was offered at a price of Rs. 2,36,250/-.

The petitioner was required to deposit a further sum of Rs. 14,063/- in order to complete 25% of the total price of the plot including Rs. 45,000/- already paid. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated October 1,1997 and made full payment of the consideration amount. A regular letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on October 22, 1998. There is a dispute with regard to the date on which the possession was actually offered by the respondent-Corporation. Although the Corporation has maintained that the possession of the plot was offered on October 22,1998 but the petitioner maintains that the same was offered on May 21,2002 and actual physical possession was delivered to the petitioner on October 9,2003. As per the terms and conditions of the letter of intent, the petitioner was required to complete construction on the plot in question within a period of three years from the date of offer of possession was made by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner claims that it had applied for approval of the building plans on November 29,2004 along with the demand draft for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with scrutiny fee of Rs. 1650. However, the said building plans submitted by the petitioner were not approved by the respondent-Corporation on account of the fact that the petitioner was required to obtain necessary extension for commencement of the construction activity. On account of the failure of the petitioner to complete the construction within the stipulated period, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner also maintains that on February 21,2006, Divisional Town Planner/HSIDC had granted approval for the building plans submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that construction activities were commenced by the petitioner and the construction had been raised upto the DPC level. The petitioner applied to the Corporation for water connection. However, the petitioner was communicated through a letter dated March 6,2006 that since the plot in question had been resumed on March 3,2006, therefore, water connection could not be considered in favour of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. Before proceeding any further, it may also be relevant to notice that at some stage, on receipt of a show cause notice from the Corporation, the petitioner had also informed the respondent-Corporation that on account of loss suffered by it in the business, the petitioner-firm was unable to continue the industrial activity and, as such, had decided to surrender the plot in question. However, no further action was taken by the petitioner or the respondent-Corporation on the said request of the petitioner.

At the out set Shri R.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that although the petitioner has not been able to complete the construction in terms of the letter of allotment within a period of three years, but if an opportunity is now granted to the petitioner, then he would complete the construction within a period of six months. Learned Counsel has also undertaken that appropriate production activities shall be commenced in the industrial plot within three months of the completion of the construction. Shri Jain has also argued that the entire amount of consideration stands already paid by the petitioner firm and the only default on account of which the plot in question had been ordered to be resumed was the non-construction by the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has vehemently contended that the petitioner had defaulted in not raising the construction within the stipulated period and no further opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner, at this stage.

Having duly considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner had already paid the entire amount of consideration due and payable by it with regard to the plot in question and the only default committed by it is non-construction and non-starting of production activities, therefore, the interest of justice requires that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to meet its obligations under the contract.

Consequently, we allow the present petition and quash the resumption order dated March 14,2005 ( Annexure P/14). The petitioner-firm shall complete the construction of the said building within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On completion of the said building, the petitioner shall within three months thereafter commence the production activity. We further direct the respondent-Corporation that if any application filed by the petitioner-company is pending consideration for release of the water connection, then the said water connection shall be released to the petitioner-firm within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is further made clear that if there is any further default by the petitioner of the aforesaid directions, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and in such a situation the resumption order Annexure P/14 shall stand automatically revived.

We may also note that a similar view had been taken by us in identical circumstances in CWP No. 4530 of 2005.