CWP No.1507 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 13.9.2010 Parvinderjit Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot in response to an advertisement issued by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd. On consideration, of his proposal to set up CWP No.1507 of 2009 2 an industrial unit, Plot No.346 in Sector 2, Saha, Ambala measuring 450 sq. meters was allotted to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.252,000/-. Possession of the plot was delivered to him on 15.12.2003, as is evident from the possession letter dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner deposited the consideration amount from time to time, as per details contained in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is admitted position of the parties that the entire sale consideration stands deposited by the petitioner and there is no outstanding against him. Apart from payment of sale consideration, the petitioner was required to establish the industrial unit within the time specified in the allotment letter. Under the terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to commence the construction of the building, as per approved building plan within a period of one year from the date of offer of possession and implement the project within a period of three years. It is also admitted position that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of allotment. Neither the construction was commenced within the stipulated period nor the unit has been made operational within the specified time. The petitioner, however, submitted his building plan to the respondents on 1.2.2006. Some deficiencies in the plan were indicated to the petitioner and on removal of such deficiencies, the building plan was approved vide communication dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure P-9). While approving the building plan, the petitioner was asked to obtain necessary extension in time beyond 30.3.2006. At the request of the petitioner, CWP No.1507 of 2009 3 extension was granted upto 16.9.2006 vide letter dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner could not commence the construction even within the extended period. This seems to have prompted the respondents to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner for resumption of the plot. After affording opportunity of hearing and seeking the reply of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation resumed the plot vide the impugned order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-2) primarily for consideration and non- establishment of the industrial unit within the specified time. This order came to be challenged in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also stands dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-1). The order of resumption and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the petitioner gave an undertaking that he is ready and willing to complete the construction within a period of four months and to make the industrial unit operational. On that basis, specific order was passed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner could not commence the construction within the specified period. It is also equally admitted position that the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner within the time specified. The petitioner has undertaken to complete the construction and to make the industrial unit operational within CWP No.1507 of 2009 4 a period of four months. However, keeping in view the various circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be allowed reasonable time to complete the construction and establish industrial unit. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 9.5.2008 and 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-2 and P-1, respectively) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall approach the competent authority for renewal of the approved building plan (Annexure P-9) within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the application for renewal, the competent authority shall grant renewal of the approved building plan within a period of four weeks thereafter, subject to fulfilment of all conditions. On receipt of the renewed sanction plan, the petitioner shall commence and complete the construction and make the unit operational within a period of six months. On failure to do so, the order of resumption shall stand revised. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 13.9. 2010 MFK