Surjit Kumar Singla vs Union Territory and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This is petition for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to deliver possession of the industrial plot No. 727 to the petitioner.

In the year 1977, the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh decided to invite applications for allotment of industrial plots at concessional price of Rs. 15/- per square yard for 99 years on lease hold basis. For this purpose, advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The Petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and also submitted a detailed scheme for manufacture of conduit pipe (20 C) and electrical fitting pipe along with bends and sockets. Vide Annexure P.3 dated 1.6.1978, the District Industries Officer asked the petitioner to appear before him for verification of the facts given in the application. Later on, the Administration decided to increase the price of the land from Rs. 15/- per square yard to Rs. 35/- per square yard. Vide letter Annexure P.4 dated 16.3.1979, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh asked the petitioner to give his consent for allotment of land at the enhanced cost. In reply, the petitioner wrote letter Annexure P.5 and deposited additional earnest money for allotment of one kanal plot. Vide Annexure P.6, the Estate Officer conveyed the Administration''s decision to consider the petitioner''s case for allotment of industrial plot of 10 marlas and he was asked to furnish some documents including an affidavit, which he immediately did. After about 3 years the respondent No. 4 wrote letter Annexure P. 13 to the Finance Secretary that in view of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee, Letter of Intent for Plot No. 727, Phase II has not been issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations Annexure P. 14 dated 20.7.1982, P.15 dated 16.12.1982, P.16 dated 26.12.1982 P.24 dated 26.1.1990, P.24-A dated nil, P.26 dated 22.12.1991, P.27 dated 5.3.1992, P.28 dated 12.7.1992, P.29 dated 7.11.1992 and P.30 dated 4.4.1993. In response to his representation dated 26.12.1985 the Estate Officer wrote letter Annexure P. 17 dated 11.11.1986 to the petitioner requiring him to supply a copy of the project report to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Alongwith letter Annexure P. 19 dated 12.1.1987, the Estate Officer forwarded a copy of the said Project Report to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Vide Annexure P.24/B dated 3.1.1991, the respondent No. 4 asked the General Manager to send his comments. Thereafter, letter Annexure No. P.25 dated 18.2.1991 was written by the General Manager, District Industries Centre to the petitioner for the latter''s personal appearance. However, in spite of this long drawn correspondence, the allotment of plot was not made to the petitioner and this is the reason why he invoked the writ jurisdiction by filing this petition on 18.5.1994. His contention is that the decision of the respondents not to make allotment of plot to him is vitiated by arbitrariness and discrimination because other similarly situated persons have not only been allotted industrial plots but they have also got possession and are doing business by setting up factories/industries.''

The respondents have objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. On merits, they have justified their decision not to allot plot to the petitioner on the ground that the Screening Committee did not recommend allotment of plot to him.

In the replication filed by him, the petitioner has reiterated his claim for allotment of industrial plot. He has made reference to the allotment of plots made in favour of Shri Diwan Singh, M/s New Age Industries, Shri S.K. Mittal, M/s Lasting Rubber Industries and M/s K.P. Industries and has urged that if they could be allotted industrial plots in spite of negative recommendations of the Screening Committee, there is no rhyme or reason to deny similar treatment to him. He has also relied on memo No. 5483-4(F)(3)-02/14264 dated 27.8 1982 written by the Finance Secretary to show that his application was included in the draw of lots despite the negative report of the Screening Committee,

In a further reply filed by them, the respondents have also reiterated their stand that the allotment of plot was not made to the petitioner because the Screening Committee did not approve the same.

The first contention urged by Shri S.D. Bansal is that after having entertained the representations made by the petitioner and decided to reconsider his plea for allotment of plot, the respondents cannot fall back upon the said report of the Screening Committee for contesting the petitioner''s claim. He criticised the report submitted by the Committee consisting of Shri Ashok Kumar, General Manager, District Industries Centre and Shri R.K. Rao (Assistant Estate Officer) by arguing that the reason indicated in the report of the two-member Committee is ex facie erroneous and perverse. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be accused of having failed to take steps for setting up of the Unit since 1979 because neither the letter of allotment was issued in his favour nor possession of the plot was handed over to him. The second contention urged by the learned counsel is that the respondents cannot decline allotment of plot to the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Screening Committee because in the cases of Diwan Singh and 4 others, allotments were made not withstanding the adverse reports of the Screening Committee.

Shri Alok Jain reiterated the objection of delay and laches and urged that no relief should be given to the petitioner in the writ petition filed by him after almost 12 years of the communication of the decision based on the negative report of the Screening Committee. Learned Counsel submitted that the cause of action accrued to the petitioner in June/early July, 1982 when the Screening Committee declined to approve allotment of plot to the petitioner and the mere making of representation is not sufficient to explain the long delay of 12 years. Learned Counsel controverted the submission of Shri Bansal that the petitioner has been discriminated vis-a-vis other similarly situated applicants, Shri Jain produced the original record to show that all the applications received for allotment of industrial plots were scrutinised by the Screening Committee and the District Industries Officer and on the basis of report of the Screening Committee, final decision was taken not to allot plot to the petitioner, though he was one of the successful applicants in the draw held in the year 1979.

We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions and carefully perused the record (3 files) produced by Shri Jain.

It appears from the record that the applications of all those who were successful in the draw of lots held on 9.10.1979 were scrutinised by the District Industries Officer in the first instance and then by the Screening Committee consisting of the Deputy Secretary (Home), Assistant Estate Officer and the District Industries Officer with a view to determine the genuineness and the extent of the land requirement of the individual applicant and then recommendations were made. In the petitioner''s case, the Committee made following observations: -

"Shri Surjeet Kumar Singla-ILN No. 907.- The applicant appeared before the Committee and informed that he is partner in M/s Dev Store, Sector 20, dealing in crockery and utensils. The project report submitted is one of conduit pipe and conduit accessories. The knowledge of the applicant with regard to the project submitted is very poor and he told the Committee that his brother had prepared the scheme and he applied. Although the applicant seems to be financially sound, the Committee feels that it would not be a genuine unit."

The files produced by Shri Jain show that on the basis of adverse recommendations made by the Screening Committee, the Administration decided not to allot plot to the petitioner. Vide memo No. 8212-ILN-907 dated 17.6.1981, the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that his request for allotment of industrial plot has been considered and rejected by the Screening Committee. A similar communication was sent to him vide memo No. 9378/INL/907/CIA-Il dated 11.5.1982. In reply to the letter written by the Finance Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the Estate Officer wrote letter Annexure P. 13 communicating the report of the Screening Committee and the consequential rejection of the petitioner''s application to the former. The record also shows that in response to memo No. HIII(2)-86)/290 dated 24.1.1986 sent by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, the Estate Officer wrote letter dated 25.2.1986 stating therein that the cases of 5 parties, namely, Shri Diwan Singh, M/s New Age Industries, Shri S.K. Mittal, M/s Lasting Rubber Industries and M/s ,K.P. Industries were re-considered and allotments were approved in their favour in spite of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee. He also indicated that the administration may re-consider the case of the petitioner on its own. It also appears that the Home Secretary, Chandigarh wrote memo No. 946-HIII(2)86/8398 dated 6.5.1986 to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chandigarh requiring him to send a fresh report of the Screening Committee in respect of the petitioner''s claim for allotment of industrial plot. In view of this and other similar communications sent by the higher authorities and representations of the petitioner and some others, the cases of the petitioner as well as M/s Kuldip Electric Works and M/s Pearl Fasteners were sent to the Screening Committee for review. This facts is borne out from the documents available at pages 82, 87 and 88 of file No. INL-907 K CIA II. However, it is not clear from the record as to what were the review recommendations of the Screening Committee of which the meeting was convened in the year 1991 and what was the decision taken by the respondent-Administration. The remaining papers available in that file relate to the writ petition and the decision taken by the respondents in the light of the order dated 2.11.1995 passed by the Court while admitting the writ petition directing the re-consideration of the representation made by the petitioner. Vide, letter No. 21239/INL/907/CIA-II dated 5.8.1996, the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that his request for allotment cannot be acceded because the Screening Committee has not cleared his case for allotment of industrial plot. This was reiterated in letter No. 17081/INL-907/CIA-II dated 16.5.1997 written by the Estate Officer.

Two facts, which are clearly borne out from the record produced by Shri Alok Jain are that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, had asked the concerned authorities to review the case of the petitioner and a meeting of the Review Screening Committee was in fact convened in the year 1991. However, it is not known as to what were the recommendations made by the Screening Committee which must have met some time in the year 1991 as per the directions of the Home Secretary and further that in cases of 5 persons named in the replication, decision for allotment of industrial plots was taken in spite of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee. The respondents have not offered any explanation why appropriate decision was not taken on the issue of allotment of plot to the petitioner on a re-consideration of his case in terms of the recommendations of the Review Screening Committee. They have also not explained as to how the case of the petitioner is different than the cases of Shri Diwan Singh, M/s New Age Industries, Shri S.K. Mittal, M/s Lasting Rubber Industries and M/s K.P. Industries to whom the plots were allotted by the administration, although the Screening Committee did not recommend allotment of plots to them. Therefore, it is reasonable to take the view that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and their failure to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot suffers from the vice of discrimination. The communication dated 5.8.1996 and 16.5.1997 sent by the Estate Officer to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition declining latter''s request for allotment of plot are merely eye wash because they neither contain any reasons for not considering the petitioner''s plea for discrimination nor do they show that his case has been rejected on the recommendations of the Review Screening Committee. We, therefore, hold that the decision of the respondents not to allot industrial plot to the petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The objection of delay and laches raised by Shri Jain may appear convincing in the first blush but on a careful scrutiny of the facts of this case, we are convinced that the petitioner cannot be non-suited only on the ground of delay. Admittedly, the petitioner''s case was ordered to be reconsidered by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and a meeting of the Review Screening Committee was, in fact, convened in the year 1991. This must have given rise to a legitimate expectation in the mind of the petitioner that his plea for allotment of plot will receive an objective and unbiased consideration at the hands of Administration. Therefore, his failure to move the Court upto 1994 cannot be made a ground for declining relief to the petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner''s application for allotment of industrial plot is quashed with the decision that within 3 months of the submission of certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall take a fresh decision after getting his case reviewed by the Screening Committee. While doing so, the Screening Committee and the Competent Authority shall keep in mind the fact that atleast 5 applicants were allotted industrial plot in spite of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee. Parties are left to bear their own costs.