CWP No.20313 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20313 of 2009 Date of decision:01.08.2011 M/s Transway Cargo Lifters (Regd.) ..... Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate and Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate for HUDA. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.20313 of 2009, 6996, 6997, 6998, 6999 and 7000 of 2010 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.20313 of 2009. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 08.10.2009, whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot in the Transport Nagar, Sector-58, Faridabad has been rejected. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA) framed a policy for re-location of transporters to a transport market. The HUDA carried out a survey and allotted plots. The petitioner filed a writ petition, challenging the survey and claiming allotment of a plot. CWP No.20313 of 2009 -2- The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. It was also ordered that if found eligible, as per the criteria fixed for allotment of plots to existing transporters, a plot should be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation and allegedly furnished relevant documents to establish its claim that it was functioning as a transporter prior to the survey. The representation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's name does not find mention in the survey. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order passed in the earlier writ petition, the respondents were not only directed to decide the representation but to allot a plot if the petitioner is found eligible as per the criteria fixed for allotment of plots to existing transporters. The petitioner's representation has been rejected without taking into consideration whether the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria fixed for allotment of plots to existing transporters. It is further argued that material produced by the petitioner, to establish its eligibility, has been ignored by merely holding that the petitioner's name does not find mention in the survey. The impugned order, in essence, disregards directions issued by this court, by failing to consider the petitioner's eligibility in accordance with the criteria fixed for allotment of a plot to existing transporters. It is prayed that as the impugned order reveals a malafide attempt to ignore directions issued by this court, the writ petition should be allowed, the impugned order CWP No.20313 of 2009 -3- should be set aside and a plot may be allotted to the petitioner. Counsel for the HUDA-respondent submits that as the petitioner's name does not find mention in the survey conducted by HUDA, the mere fact that it has produced evidence to show that it was functioning as a transporter, prior to the survey, is irrelevant. The petitioner's grievance that it was not made a party to the survey or no advertisement was issued, should be rejected as such an advertisement would have led to fraudulent companies/firms coming forward to stake claim as transporters. It is prayed that as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As is apparent from the facts, the respondents were directed, vide order dated 20.08.2009, to decide the representation and to also allot a plot, if the petitioner is found eligible as per criteria fixed for allotment of plots to existing transporters. The order dated 20.08.2009, reads as follows: “The petitioners, alleging that they are the existing transporters, pray that directions be issued to the respondents to consider their claim for allotment of plots in Transport Nagar, Sector 58, Faridabad. It is the case of the petitioners that when earlier, survey was conducted, the petitioners were not intimated, though all the petitioners are in transport business for the last so many years. To say so, reference has been made to some documents on record. Counsel further submits that under similar circumstances, M/s Bhagwati Carrier & Others V. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.7578 of 2009) decided on 10.05.2009, the authorities CWP No.20313 of 2009 -4- were directed to consider claim of the similar situated transporters for allotment of plots. Record reveals that the petitioners have also sent representations Annexures P-12 to P-15 for allotment of plots to them, being eligible transporters. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take note and decide representations filed by the petitioners, after affording opportunity of hearing to them. If they are eligible, as per criteria fixed for allotment of plots to the existing transporters, plots be allotted to them, as per norms. To the contrary, if the officers concerned wishes to reject claim of the petitioners on valid grounds, a speaking order be passed and a copy of the same be supplied to them. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The impugned order, discloses an attempt to evade adjudication of the petitioner's claim, in accordance with directions contained in order dated 20.08.2009. The respondents were required to consider the petitioner's claim as per the eligibility criteria fixed for allotment of plots to existing transporters. The impugned order does not refer to much less consider the eligibility criteria, while rejecting the petitioner's representation. In addition, the impugned order does not refer to documents submitted by the petitioner in support of its plea that it was functioning as a transporter prior to the survey but has merely rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner's name does not figure in the survey. The directions contained in order dated 20.08.2009 are binding upon the respondents and were issued despite the survey. The rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground that its name does not figure in the survey is to say the least, an attempt to evade directions contained in the order dated 20.08.2009. In CWP No.20313 of 2009 -5- the absence of any consideration of the petitioner's case, the impugned order, passed in blatant disregard to directions contained in the order dated 20.08.2009, is a nullity. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 08.10.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-10, Faridabad, to consider the material produced by the petitioner strictly in accordance with directions issued by this court and pass a speaking order accepting or rejecting the petitioners' claim within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-10, Faridabad, on 24.10.2011. 01.08.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE