CWP No.8703 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 23.12.2010 M/s R.S.Enterprises ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vikram Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Arunwalia, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Mr.Amit Kohar, and Mr.Shamlal Bhalla, Advocates for respondent no.5 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. Pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2010, two affidavits have been filed by the Estate Officer, one restricted to tendering unconditional apology and the other giving details of the allotment of plots beyond 465 eligible allottees. CWP No.8703 of 2009 (O&M) 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the additional affidavit wherein details of allotments to 32 allottees beyond 465 have been given. Some of the allotments have been made pursuant to the directions of this Court whereas some allotments have been made under the prestigious projects and some allotments under the directions of Chief Administrator, HUDA on the recommendations of the Allotment Committee headed by HSIIDC, Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these allotments are not in accordance with the original Scheme of the respondents and thus are not valid in law. It has, however, come on record that 12 plots are still lying vacant in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. It is admitted case of the parties that Sector 29, Part II, Panipat was established to accommodate the dyeing units, keeping in view the environmental hazards. No other unit has been accommodated in this Sector. The petitioner is also dyeing unit. However, the claim of the petitioner was earlier rejected on the ground that during the survey conducted in the year 2001, this Unit was not found existing. The petitioner filed CWP No.18681 of 2007 which also came to be dismissed on 25.11.2008 on the ground that the petitioner- unit did not exist during the survey. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming allotment of plot on the ground that the petitioner is also dyeing unit and is operating in a non-conforming area for which the petitioner has already been issued notice from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board. It is not in dispute that Scheme for Sector 29, Part II, Panipat was floated only for dyeing units as necessary infrastructure for protection of environment was put in place only in this Sector. Even after accommodating the units which were in existence in the year 2001, some plots are still available. Admittedly, these plots are primarily meant for CWP No.8703 of 2009 (O&M) 3 dyeing units. From the details given in the affidavit dated 22.12.2010, it also appears that some units either under the prestigious category or otherwise have been allotted plots in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. There is nothing on record to show that these allottees were having their units in the year 2001. To the contrary, it appears that these units have been allotted plots even when they were not existing in the year 2001 like the petitioner. Under the given circumstances, the contention of the respondents that plots can only be allotted to the units which were in existence in the year 2001 cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that all such units have already been accommodated either by the respondents or under the orders of this Court. Under the above circumstances, it is deemed necessary that such of the dyeing units which were not existing in 2001, but have been established thereafter and are operating in the non-conforming areas may also be considered for allotment of plots in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1)HUDA shall issue a fresh public notice inviting applications for the dyeing units operating in non-conforming areas in Panipat. Only such units will be eligible which are in existence prior to 22.12.2009. (2)All available plots shall be notified for allotment in any case not less than 12 plots as admitted by the respondents in the present writ petition, subject to any directions from any competent court of law in operation as on date. (3)If the number of applicants is more than the number of notified/advertised plots, the allotment shall be made by draw of lots. However, if number of applicants is less than the number of plots, draw CWP No.8703 of 2009 (O&M) 4 of lots shall be held only to allocate number of plot. (4)Let the entire exercise be completed within four months from today. Ms.Subhita Dhaka, Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat is present in Court as directed by this court. Contempt proceedings were initiated against her by rejecting her affidavit of apology which was found not to be unconditional. She has filed a fresh affidavit. Though the approach of the Officer was defiant, however, keeping in view the fresh affidavit tendering unconditional apology, the same is accepted and contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5