LPA No. 214 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 214 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 M/s. Property Promoters ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the appellant. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner. 2. Claim of the petitioner is for allotment of site under Group Housing Scheme at SAS Nagar, Mohali which was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2008 on the ground that as per the revised policy the site is to be sold only by the open auction. 3. As per material on record, an advertisement dated 27.5.1993 was issued for allotment of site to Group Housing Societies. CWP No. 2596 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner challenging allotment in favour of M/s. Sandhu Builders who had not applied within time. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 15.9.1998 and allotment in favour of M/s. Sandhu Builders was quashed with a further direction that fresh exercise be undertaken to consider the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement. This process was to be done within two months from the receipt of a copy of the order. It appears that some of the affected parties LPA No. 214 of 2009 2 filed a review applications which remained pending and were finally dismissed on 3.8.2006. Thereafter application of the petitioner was considered and dismissed on the ground that policy to sell by auction had been adopted. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant relied upon office noting in its favour and submitted that policy to sell by auction was merely an excuse to exclude the petitioner and the application of the petitioner was to be considered as per advertisement. This plea was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that merely by inviting or making of application, no vested right had been created in favour of the appellant and method of allotment could be changed in accordance with the statutory provisions and did not call for any interference. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in not accepting the plea that vested right had already accrued and his case was required to be considered as per terms of the advertisement and that vide noting dated 7.11.2006 recommendation in favour of the appellant was made. Change of policy after 10 years was arbitrary and affected vested right. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in Industrial Assistance Group Government of Haryana v. Ashutosh Ahluwalia, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 552, Smt. Daljit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and another, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 57 and M/s. M.R. Engineering Works v.State of Haryana and others, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 318. 6. There is no doubt about the legal proposition that every public authority has to act fairly and reasonably and change of policy should not affect the vested right, if already accrued. LPA No. 214 of 2009 3 7. In the present case, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that no vested right was created merely on account of advertisement having been issued and the applications having been made or even by order of this Court dated 15.9.1998 while quashing allotment in favour of M/s. M/s. Sandhu Builders and directing that application of the petitioner be considered afresh and, thus, it was held that there was no arbitrariness involved in changing the policy and adopting the policy to sell by auction. We do not find find any ground to interfere with the said view. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that 13 co-operative societies were exempted from the changed policy on the ground that Finance and Accounts Committee had already approved allotment of sites to the said 13 societies prior to the introduction of the policy. This may have furnished a ground to the appellant to challenge the discriminatory decision immediately after the said decision was taken by impleading the co-operative societies but the appellant filed the present petition only on 19.12.2008 and the said co-operative societies were never impleaded as parties. In absence thereof, even if there was discrimination in favour of the said 13 Cooperative Societies, it cannot be held that a direction is required to be issued to allow the allotment of the site to the petitioner without open auction. 9. Thus, no interference is called for with view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 30.3.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE LPA No. 214 of 2009 4