CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2011 Labotech Instrument Industries .....Petitioners VERSUS Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of laboratory instruments and chemicals. The petitioner is successfully running a Unit by the name of Linco Scientific Instruments at Ambala Cantt. The petitioner has applied for allotment of an industrial plot for setting up a similar unit at Industrial Estate, Saha , Distt. Ambala. The petitioner was allotted plot No. 342 measuring 1800 sq. mtrs. through allotment letter dated 17.6.2002. The tentative price of the plot was ` 10,08,000/-. The petitioner was required to deposit a sum of ` 1,51,200/- within a period of 30 days from the issue of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 -2- allotment letter and this would have constituted 25% of the price of the plot. The petitioner deposited the said amount within time stipulated. The balance 75% of the price was to be deposited in 5 equal instalments along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of offer of physical possession. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was required to start the construction of plot as per the approved building plan within a period of one year from the offer of physical possession. The petitioner was also required to commence commercial production within a period of three years from the date of offer of the possession. In case of any inability to start construction within the time stipulated, the extension for a period of 6 months could be granted by the respondent. Similarly, if the petitioner was unable to commence production within the stipulated period, extension could be sought and granted for a maximum period of one year. The petitioner would mention that he has already allotted Plot No. 341 at the same industrial estate for the purpose of manufacturing Laboratory Chemicals and the unit is running successfully. The offer of possession of plot No.342 was made only on 10.3.2003. The actual possession statedly was given on 21.10.2003. It is stated that the respondent did not provide the requisite infrastructure to the allottees. The petitioner could neither commence construction nor could start the manufacture. The petitioner received a notice on 11.1.2005 calling upon him as to why the plot be not resumed. The petitioner appeared before the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 -3- respondent and prayed for grant of extension till 15.3.2005. The respondent did not respond in any manner. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for grant of extension for a period of 6 months, which prayer was rejected. Another show cause notice was issued asking the petitioner as to why action be not taken against him. The petitioner, thereafter, received a letter, which made reference to some letter dated 28.7.2005, which he never received. Only period of 45 days was granted to implement the project, which was too short. Claiming that this was not effective time granted, the petitioner again requested for fresh extension for a period of 6 months for commencing construction. The petitioner, however, was granted extension till 16.3.2006 through letter dated 1.2.2006. Thus, he was given only 54 days to commence construction etc. which again was found to be inadequate. The petitioner again applied for extension on 18.3.2006. Instead the petitioner was served show cause notice on 10.5.2006. The petitioner filed response and sought extension of one year even on payment of extension fee and assured completion of the project within the extended period. Still the petitioner was served a resumption notice on 7.11.2006. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same on 7.3.2008 and then had approached this Court for quashing the resumption order. This writ petition was allowed on 13.7.2009 by observing that the extension granted to the petitioner was for a very short period making it impossible to get the building plan sanctioned and to undertake construction. The willingness on the part of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 -4- petitioner to commence construction was noticed. The petitioner has already gone into the commercial production from the alternative plot. Based on these facts, directions were issued by this Court to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also called to appear before the appellate authority on 17.8.2009. The appellate authority has directed the Corporation to offer the re-allotment of plot to the petitioner at the current prevailing price, which is quoted as ` 1100/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner is asked to deposit the amount within 6 weeks from the date of acceptance of offer by the Corporation. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has again approached this Court through the present writ petition. Reply is filed contesting the plea raised by the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority is justified. It is stated that the petitioner had all the time to commence the construction or to commence production as well. The petitioner, however, has not been sincere in commencing construction etc. Counsel for the respondent would also justify the order passed by the appellate authority requiring the petitioner to pay the price of plot for re-allotment @ ` 1100/- per sq. mtr. The reasoning given by the appellate authority is perused by me. Not much justification is seen in the conduct of the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner was not given adequate time to commence construction, when he had sought extension of time, but still the petitioner during all this period could commence construction. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17775 of 2009 -5- he could not commence construction because of a threat of resumption, may be justified to an extent. Balancing all these equities, the appellate authority, in my view, has rightly held that the petitioner should now be re-allotted this plot at the rate of ` 1100/- per sq. meter. The counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has now accepted this offer and has agreed to make the balanced payment within a period of 1 month. Counsel for the petitioner, on proper instructions, also submits that the petitioner would complete construction within a period of 6 months. The petitioner seems to be fair in his offer. Once a pot is re-allotted, the petitioner may have to be given time to commence and complete construction. Counsel for the respondent is justified in submitting that in case, the petitioner fails to adhere to the time schedule now undertaken before this Court, the right to resume the plot should be kept open. It is made clear to the petitioner, who is present in person in the Court, that in case he fails to discharge the remaining liability within 30 days or is unable to complete construction within 6 moths, the respondent would be at liberty to resume or commence the resumption proceedings in accordance with law. The respondent would be at liberty to charge interest on the balanced amount now required to be paid from the year 2009 onwards. The petitioner, of-course, would also be required to pay extension fee in accordance with rules. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. May 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE