Civil Writ Petition No. 8241 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8241 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Kusum Lata ....Petitioner. Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.Raghujit Singh Madan, Advocate, for respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat, vide which the representation of the petitioner filed in pursuance of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 12978 of 2006 has been rejected, and further for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allot a plot measuring 2100 sq. metres in Sector -29, Part-II, Industrial Estate, Urban Estate, Panipat. Briefly the facts of the case as taken from the writ petition are that respondents offered 19 industrial plots measuring 2100 sq. metres in Sector 29, Part-II, Industrial Estate, Panipat and applications from various categories of entrepreneurs were invited. The petitioner applied for the said plot and submitted application on 20.3.2005. After completing all formalities, the petitioner appeared in the interview. The respondents, on the basis of the documents/project report, considered the case of the petitioner but Civil Writ Petition No. 8241 of 2007 [2] the same was rejected. The amount submitted by the petitioner along with the application was returned. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12978 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.8.2006 with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a detailed and speaking order. It was also directed that for that purpose, the petitioner would file a detailed comprehensive representation by appending all relevant documents. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed comprehensive representation on 28.8.2006 and the same was rejected by the respondent-authorities vide order dated 6.2.2007, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Mr.Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that respondent authorities have not passed a detailed speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been given while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It has also been argued by Mr.Jain that performance of the petitioner was quite satisfactory in the interview but her case has wrongly been rejected on the ground that petitioner was found ignorant about her proposed project. It has also been argued that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected without considering the project report on merits. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is on record. Mr. Raghujit Singh Madan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, has argued that petitioner appeared before the interview committee and was not found well conversant even with the details of the project report submitted Civil Writ Petition No. 8241 of 2007 [3] along with the application. He further argued that as per report of the interview committee, the petitioner was found ignorant about the proposed project as she was not even aware of the details as contained in the project report and was not found to be genuine woman entrepreneur and her case was not recommended for allotment of industrial plot. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the documents on record. We have also seen the rejection order which is quite comprehensive and detailed one where sufficient reasons for not considering petitioner's claim have been given. The opinion of the interview committee cannot be interfered with and the performance of the petitioner cannot be judged only by saying that she was good in the interview. It is a specific case of the respondents that the petitioner was not conversant with the project report submitted and was not well aware of the proposed report. In view of the facts mentioned above, we do not find it a fit case for interference. Moreover, we do not find anything wrong in the procedure adopted by the respondents in assessing the respective merits of the candidates. The writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE 4.11.2008. raghav