CWP No.1203 of 1983 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 C.W.P. No. 1203 of 1983 M/s Monarch Industries. ...Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents C.W.P. No. 936 of 1983 M/s Mongia & Co. and another. ...Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. I.K.Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kohli and Mrs. Ranjit Mehta, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Parveen Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.14. Paramjeet Singh, J. Both the above mentioned Civil Writ Petitions bearing CWP No. 1203 of 1993 and 936 of 1983 have been listed together for hearing. Both the above mentioned Civil Writ CWP No.1203 of 1983 2 Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 1203 of 1983. Therefore, for sake of convenience, facts from this case are being taken. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of allotment of plots made to respondent Nos. 4 to 55 on 06.12.1982 and for direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot Industrial plot to the petitioner and also prayer is to stay the transfer / possession of the plots to respondent Nos. 4 to 55. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 14.04.1981 was issued in the Press for allotment of Industrial Plots and the interested persons were required to file application for that purpose. Certain conditions were specified in the said advertisement. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of 4 kanals plot to the Estate Officer along with the requisite earnest money. As per the requirement of the advertisement, an affidavit was also annexed. On 20.01.1982, the Chairman, Screening Committee, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) directed the petitioner to appear for interview on 28.01.1982 for allotment of industrial plot. The petitioner, accordingly appeared before the Screening Committee and submitted balance sheets of the existing industry for which he was working. It is also averred in the writ petition that the Chairman of the Screening Committee CWP No.1203 of 1983 3 intimated the petitioner that Committee would visit the factory premises on 20.05.1982. On 20.05.1982, the Chairman along with other members of the Screening Committee visited the premises to check and verify the particulars given by the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that in spite of completion of all the formalities and being eligible for allotment of plot, he was not allotted a plot for extraneous reasons. The petitioner alleged that he remained stunned to see that the plots have been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 26 in utter violation of the conditions of the advertisement as they were having plots either in their name or in the names of their parents, spouse or their dependents. According to the petitioner, plots have been allotted to more than 111 persons who were subsequently registered as applicants. The applicant could be considered for allotment of industrial plot according to date of registration of unit, as the existing unit of respondent Nos. 27 to 45 were registered after the petitioner, as such, the petitioner has a preferential right. The petitioner has stated that similar plots have been allotted to M/s Pep Fastners, 704, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, while the unit in fact is closed and is in existence in papers only. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 46 to 55 have been illegally allotted plots as they came into existence much after the registration of the petitioner i.e. on 20.05.1981. In spite of raising hue and cry, the grievance of the petitioner has not been heard. CWP No.1203 of 1983 4 The stand of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner was duly interviewed by the Screening Committee and not found fit for allotment of plot. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Wire Drawing. The Government of India vide letter No. 6(1)/80/S11 dated 13.11.1980 has banned further registration and expansion of any such wire drawing produce or wire based industries. Hence, there is no scope for further expansion of the petitioner's industries. The petitioner is occupying an industrial plot No. 87, Phase II, which is owned by his family. Respondent No.11 has also filed written statement and submitted that earlier this petition was dismissed by this Court and the petitioner had filed an SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 27.10.1999 (Annexure R/1):- “The question which arises for consideration in these appeals pertains to the allotment of land in Chandigarh for the purpose of setting up an industry and this allotment took place in the year 1993. The appellants were unsuccessful and they filed writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed in limine. After going through the records we are of the opinion that the writ petitions ought to have been decided after issuance of notice and by a speaking CWP No.1203 of 1983 5 order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court with a direction that the writ petitions filed by the appellants should be decided afresh. It is made clear that the High Court will not, if it grants any relief to the appellants herein, disturb any of those allottees who have set up an industry or are in the process of setting up an industry on the plots allotted to them. In other words the High Court will grant relief, if it is so inclined, only in respect of vacant plots. Liberty to the appellants is granted to approach the High Court for an early date. The High Court will decide the writ petitions after giving opportunities to the parties to place on record such claims or pleadings as the parties may desire.” We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset, this Court asked the learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, to produce the original record relating to the allotment, but the learned counsel showed his inability to produce the record of allotments as it is quite old record and is not traceable. As noticed above, the matter was earlier disposed of by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4941 of 1989, decided on 27.10.1999, set aside the order of this Court and directed this Court to decide the writ petition CWP No.1203 of 1983 6 afresh, and specific direction was issued that this Court will not disturb any of those allottees who have set up an industry or are in the process of setting up an industry on the plots allotted to them. It was further observed that if, at all, this Court comes to the conclusion that relief is required to be granted, it can only be granted in respect of vacant plots. So, in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, only issue left is whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot in terms of an application submitted by him and if so to what relief? The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is carrying on the manufacturing business in a rented premises at Plot No. 87, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. The balance sheets for three years i.e. 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 had been submitted before the Screening Committee. It is admitted case that the Screening Committee interviewed the petitioner and also visited the premises of the petitioner. As per the written statement of the Union Territory, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner wanted to expand the business of wire drawing, which has been banned by the Government of India vide letter dated 13.11.1980. As such, there is no scope for the expansion of wire drawing produce or wire based industries. The screening Committee had also found that the family of the petitioner is having plot No. 87, Industrial Area-II, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that CWP No.1203 of 1983 7 U.T. Administration has allowed to change the nature of business/industry in many cases. The facts are not in dispute and the letter of the Government of India is also not in dispute whereby the wire drawing and wire based industries have been ordered to be stopped or further expansion of unit is not permissible. It is also admitted fact that when the advertisement dated 14.04.1981 was issued, notification dated 13.11.1980 was in operation. However, the petitioner can be permitted to change the business / industry, as has been done in other cases. The petitioner fulfills the conditions of the advertisement. This fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the Union Territory. Since, the respondents (U.T., Administration) have failed to produce the original record, adverse inference is to be drawn against them. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union Territory that in view of large number of applicants, size of the plots was reduced to 1 kanal and 5 marlas. In case of Kapur Chand Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and others, SLP No. 4848 of 1995, decided on 13.11.1995 it has been admitted that some plots of 1 kanal and 10 marlas are still available, which can be allotted to the applicants. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court cannot disturb the relief qua already allotted plots to respondent Nos. 4 to 55 as this matter already stands decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, we direct respondent Nos. CWP No.1203 of 1983 8 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions for allotment of plot as per their entitlement as plots are still vacant and available, as either the advertised plots have not been allotted or have been surrendered or otherwise cancelled or resumed. However, the petitioners will be bound to pay the present market price if the Union Territory comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to allotment of plot and allots one to the petitioner. The area of plot will be restricted either in the category of 1 kanal or 10 marla . Disposed of accordingly. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE December 01, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE