LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 11, 2011 The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another ..... PETITIONERS VERSUS Delhi Prakashan Vitran Pvt. Ltd. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner by setting aside the letter dated 27.07.1989 withdrawing the offer of allotment of an industrial plot bearing No. 53-54 measuring ½ acre in Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the cost of the project was ` 47 lacs and even if the agent security amounting to ` 39 lacs is taken into consideration to be the correct mode of showing the liquidity of the writ petitioner-respondent Company, the amount was far less LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) 2 than the project cost and, therefore, the condition, as imposed by the appellants showing the resources to execute the project, was not complied with and, therefore, the letter dated 27.07.1989 withdrawing the offer of allotment of the industrial plot was fully justified. His further contention is that the price of the plot has now sky-rocketed as compared to the price in the year 1988 and by allotting plot to the petitioner-respondent Company now at the earlier rate of allotment is not sustainable. He, accordingly, prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Upon notice issued by the Court, Mr. Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent, who filed the caveat, accepted notice and submitted that in response to the communication received from the appellants, the petitioner-respondent had addressed a letter dated 29.11.1986, wherein it was mentioned that Coroset Web Offset Machine had already been imported and installed at the premises of M/s Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of the petitioner- respondent. The value of the machine is ` 25,20,000/- and an amount of ` 9,41,678.60 had been paid towards the custom duty. Their banker namely, Grindlays Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, had sanctioned ` 5,00,000/- as over draft facility to the petitioner-respondent. Copy of the balance sheet, as required by the appellant-The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation for the year ending 31st December, 1985, was enclosed with this letter. According to the said balance sheet, the turn over was shown as ` 3,25,25,517.37. Further, a letter was enclosed, which was addressed to the HSIDC by the M/s Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi stating that the Coroset Web Offset and one Heidelberg KORD Single Colour Offset valued at approximately ` 35,00,000/- and LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) 3 ` 7,00,000/- respectively will be installed at the premises as soon as the construction at the site is completed. Along with this letter, copies of Bill of Entry, Invoices etc. towards the import of the machine from Germany were also enclosed. On the basis of this communication, he contends that the argument raised by the counsel for the appellants is without any basis and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the cost of the plot has increased manifold, he contends that the appellants-Corporation has delayed the process of allotment of the plot to the writ petitioner-respondent Company and has not handed over the possession. After the filing of the writ petition in the year 1989, all through the plot remained vacant and there is no third party rights created during this period. Since there was no justification on the part of the appellants in not allotting the plot finally, respondent-petitioner cannot be penalized for the same as it was also ready and willing to give effect to the project in question, for which the respondent-petitioner had applied. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have, with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. A letter dated 27.12.1984 was sent to the respondent- petitioner provisionally allotting about ½ acres plot at a rate of ` 120 per sq. mtr. The respondent (writ-petitioner) paid 25% of the same and thereafter, 75% of the remaining amount in 10 equated installments . The four requisites, which were to be fulfilled by the respondent-petitioner, could not be complied with and, therefore, extension of time was sought by the respondent-petitioner, which was granted. The appellants showed their concern with regard to the capability of the respondent-petitioner to execute the project primarily with regard to the requisite funds to begin the LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) 4 activities of establishing of the unit, if the plot was allotted and the actual purchase of the machinery and how and when they were going to be installed. On 29.08.1988, writ-petitioner was informed to fulfil three requirements: (1) The latest audited balance sheet of the Company (2) The undertaking of the Company to pay revised rate of plot at ` 175/- per sq. mtrs. (3) ` 27,500/- towards the balance payment of 25% cost of plot after the price of the plot was revised. The petitioner-respondent provided the audited balance sheet and also accepted the demand for payment of ` 27,500/- made by the Corporation. Finally, the matter was settled vide letter dated 09.09.1988 and an amount of ` 35,000/- was paid through a demand draft on 14.09.1988. The audited balance sheets and other information, which was called for by the Corporation subsequently, were supplied by the writ- petitioner-respondent and it is apparent from the communication dated 29.11.1986, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-20, that all the requirements stood fulfilled by the petitioner-respondent, which were with regard to the financial capability of the petitioner-respondent for executing the project and the availability of the machines for installation in the premises, the details whereof have been mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner-respondent in his arguments as noticed above. In view of the above factual position, the submissions, as forwarded by the counsel for the appellants, do not sustain in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent-petitioner, which could not be rebutted by the counsel for the appellants. The delay, if any, has occurred because of the various clarifications and documents sought for by the appellants from time to time, which were supplied by the respondent-petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be penalized by now stating LPA No. 2049 of 2011 (O&M) 5 that the price of the land has now shot up and, therefore, it cannot be allotted the plot at the rate, which was prevalent when the offer was made. The pendency of the writ petition in this Court also will not prejudice the right of the writ-petitioner-respondent as it cannot be held responsible for the same. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2011, which is impugned in the present appeal, thus, cannot be said to be without any basis or incorrect, which would call for interference by us in the present appeal. May we mention here that in the impugned judgment, while directing the appellant to issue letter of allotment to the respondent-writ petitioner if no amount is payable, liberty has been granted to the appellant to impose reasonable restrictions of compelling the petitioner company to set up the plant and machinery within a time frame and also impose restrictions on alienation so that the benefit of allotment is not converted into as an undeserving lottery. The appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. ( M.M.KUMAR ) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE JUDGE November 11, 2011 pj