IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 13, 2008 Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.R. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tushar Sharma & Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocates, for the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2748 of 2007. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curaie. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for HUDA in C.W.P. No. 2748 of 2007. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for HUDA. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2, 8 and 15. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.P. Bhatti, Advocate, C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 for respondent Nos. 3 & 22. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No. 7 (in C.W.P. Nos. 7790, 8974 and 11339 of 2007) Mr. Amit Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 10. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 11 in C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007. Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 13. Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate, for respondent No. 14. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No. 16. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 18. Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent No. 19. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 20. Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 21. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for respondent No. 23. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. 2 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 1. If settled principles of law are flagrantly violated by those who are entrusted with the duty to apply those principles then gullible public is bound to walk with the impression that the system moves only on extraneous considerations and not on relevant one. When the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution becomes binding on each and every individual then at least it is safe to presume that it is known to the parties. When those filled with greed gain confidence setting in motion the moves that the settled principles of law could be shelved then such people acquire guts and confidence to defeat such principles. These set of petitions filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution, thus, reveal thinking of such persons who perhaps have hoped that no one is likely to know about their acts and they could execute their operation without being caught. But vigilant petitioners have come forward exposing their designs and unholy intentions to shelve settled law. 2. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 2748, 7790, 8974, 9962, 11339 and 11501 of 2007. It is appropriate to mention that another writ petition being C.W.P. No. 17138 of 2006 (M/s Sigma Corporation India Ltd. v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others) was also filed involving similar issues. However, the said writ petition has been sought to be withdrawn by filing Civil Misc. No. 15033 of 2007 in C.W.P. No. 17138 of 2006, which we permitted vide order dated 3.10.2007. At the same time, Civil Misc. No. 16953 of 2007 in C.W.P. No. 11501 of 2007 (Uniways Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. The Haryana Urban Development 3 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Authority and others) was filed by the petitioner of the said petition seeking permission of this Court to withdraw from the writ petition. While allowing the said application vide our order dated 10.10.2007, we also directed that C.W.P. No. 11501 of 2007 be treated as ‘Court on its own motion’ in terms of order dated 6.5.1999, passed in C.W.P. No. 5645 of 1995 (Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab). Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, has readily accepted to act as amicus curiae to assist the Court. 3. For the sake of brevity, facts are being mentioned from C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007. This petition challenges the action of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity, ‘the HUDA’) in allotting Corporate Offices plots to the private respondents and prays for issuance of direction to HUDA to consider and allot the petitioner one half acre plot in Sector 44, Gurgaon, in terms of the advertisement/brochure. The petitioner is a company having its Head Office at Hisar. It is claimed that the financial position of the petitioner-company is very sound and it has customers all over India, which includes Government bodies, leading Public Sector Undertakings and leading Private Sector Companies etc. The primary objective of the petitioner-company is to carry business of transportation of goods carriers by all means of transport viz. land, sea, inland waterways and air. 4. In January/February 2006, HUDA issued an advertisement in various National newspapers for allotment of free hold institutional plots of various sizes for Corporate Offices, 4 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Research and Development Centres, Corporate Towers and Staff Training Institutes in Sectors 18, 32 and 44, Gurgaon and Sector 20A and 20B, Faridabad. The booking commenced from 10.2.2006 and closed on 10.3.2006. As per brochure Annexure P-3, following is the details of plots, which were offered for allotment:- GURGAON Category of Plots Size in mtrs. No. of Plots for Govt. Organization s No. of Plots for Private / Non Govt. Organizations SECTOR-18 1 acre (4000 sqm.) 1/2 acre (2340 sqm.) 1 - - 1 SECTOR-32 1/2 ACRE (37X60) 4 4 SECTOR-44 4 acre (140x120) 2 acre (80x100) 1 acre (50x90) 1/2 acre (35x60) 1/4 acre (20x50) 2 Bays (13x41.5) 4 Bays (26x41.5) - 1 1 13 1 7 7 1 2 - 13 1 - - FARIDABAD 5 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Category of Plots Size in mtrs. No. of Plots for Govt. Organization s No. of Plots for Private / Non Govt. Organizations SECTOR-20A 2 acre (98.75x80) 1 acre (50x80) 1/2 acre (30x60) 1/4 acre (20x40) 6 10 2 16 6 10 2 16 SECTOR-20B 2 acre (8000 sqm.) 1 acre (50x80) 1/2 acre (2000sqm.) 1/4 acre (20x50) 6 8 1 5 6 8 1 5 5. The brochure further prescribed terms and conditions under the headings of Eligibility, Permissible Uses, Procedure for Allotment and Mode of Payment, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “ELIGIBILITY The following are eligible to apply for institutional plots. A) Govt. Organisation: State and Centre govt. Deptts, Boards & Corporations and Public Sector 6 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Undertakings of the State and Central govt. B) Non Govt./Private Companies/Organisations. PERMISSIBLE USES Only following uses shall be permitted in the buildings to be constructed in the institutional plots. 1. Corporate Offices. 2. Research and Development Centres (with backup hospital facilities.) 3. Staff-Education and Training Centres. 4. Offices of Professional Groups / Associations / Societies not engaged in Commercial / Manufacturing activities. 5. Other institutional Uses. 10% of the floor areas of the buildings can be used for a purpose ancillary to any of the above uses with the approval of Chief Administrator. PROCEDURE FOR ALLOTMENT The applicant will apply on the prescribed form. The applications shall be scrutinised/applicants interviewed by a Standing Screening Committee, constituted for the purpose. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 xxx xxx xxx xxx” 6. The petitioner-company applied for allotment of ½ acre plot in Sector 44, Gurgaon in the prescribed application form along with earnest money of Rs. 26,25,000/- (P-4). The petitioner-company also submitted a detailed project report along with the application form (P-5). On 5.6.2006, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, sent a letter to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner- company for appearing before the Interview Committee on 13.6.2006 at 5.00 p.m. in the office of the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon (P- 6). On 13.6.2006, representative of the petitioner-company appeared for interview, which allegedly lasts only for two minutes. As required by letter dated 5.6.2006, required documents/information were furnished along with letter dated 12.6.2006 (P-7). Nothing was heard from HUDA and on inquiries having been made by the petitioner- company it came to know that allotments had already been made in favour of the private respondents and the allotments were also challenged in this Court in C.W.P. No. 17138 of 2006. On 28.10.2006, the petitioner-company made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for supply of information regarding allotments in question (P-26). When information was not supplied within the stipulated period of 30 days, a reminder was sent on 15.1.2007 (P-27), which was followed by a complaint/representation dated 14.3.2007 made to the Central Information Commission (P-28). On 7.5.2007, the HUDA supplied copy of the recommendations of the Interview Committee in respect of successful applicants (P-29 & P- 8 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 30). The petitioner-company has prepared a comparative chart giving details of respondent Nos. 2 to 23 in respect of their financial status, turnover of the Company, activities of the Company, profit and employees working etc. etc. The aforementioned chart since gives a bird’s eye view of the selected allottees of corporate plots, deserves to be noticed, which read thus: 9 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 Sr. No . Name of the Company Address Date of incor- poration Financial Status Authoris ed Capital Issued Capital Subs- cribed Capital Paid up Capital Reserves & Surplus Long Term Borrowings (>1 Year) Nature of project Justificatio n of land utilization Turnover of the Company (inc ED) 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Activities of the Company Profit of the Comp- any No. of employ- ees working No. of employees likely to join in view of expansion Public sector undertaking Govt. Policy for IT/ Soft ware company Remarks 2. Messrs Delicious Marketing Private Limited 1204 Sector 4 Pocket A, Vasant Kunj, Delhi- 110064 22.01.199 8 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs Not available Not available Not availa ble Not available Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not available Not avail- able Not avail- able Not available Not available Not available 3. Messrs Minarch Overseas Private Limited G-7, Ashoka Plaza Building, 12A/14, WEA Karol Bagh, N. Delhi- 110005 25.11.199 1 5 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able 2.70 Lacs Nil as on 31.3.2005 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 0.0026 Cr. As on 31.3.2005 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 4. Messrs Matrix Back Office Services Private Limited 7 Khullar Farm, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi- 110030 9.9.2005 1 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 2.95 Cr. (GC) + 46.5 3 Cr (GC) Not avail- able Call Centre & back office services 0.63 Cr. (GC) 200 (GC) 150 (GC) Not avail- able Not avail- able 5. Messrs IST Limited A23, New Office Complex, Defence Colony, New Delhi- 110024 8.9.1976 1000 Lacs As per BS 2004 603 Lacs As per BS 2004 583.20 Lacs As per BS 2004 583.20 Lacs As per BS 2004 60 Lacs As per BS 2004 Nil IT Not avail- able 13.02 Cr. (GC) 16.41 Cr. (GC) 24.47 Cr. (GC) Not avail- able Automo- tive, Defence compo- nents & IT 2.45 Cr (PBT) (2005-06) Not avail- able 50 (as per form) Not avail- able Not avail- able Software/ IT Park develop- ment with Unitech in Gurgaon 6. Messrs Creative Looms and Crafts Private Limited 30A, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi- 110024 30.07.198 3 21 Lacs As per BS 2006 19.81 Lacs As per BS 2006 19.81 Lacs As per 2006 19.81 Lacs As per 2006 32.38 Lacs As per BS 2006 Nil Train- ing Insti- tute Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 4 Cr. (GC) 6 Cr. (Proj) Handi- crafts, products and Fabrics 0.0022 Cr. As on 31.3.2004 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Owns 1.5 Acre Plot at Badshah- pur, Gurgaon 10 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 7. Messrs PD Education Private Limited 12, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110065 9.3.2006 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 8. Messrs BLM Software Private Limited B-62 N.D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi- 110049 27.10.200 4 2 Lacs As per BS 2005 1 Lacs As per BS 2005 1 Lacs As per BS 2005 1 Lacs As per BS 2005 Nil Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able IT- Software Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 9. Messrs Holly Bocks Realtors Private Limited B.M.S. Business Centre, 10 Plaza Cinema Building, Conn. Place, N. Delhi 23.03.200 5 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Real Estate Devel- opers Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 10. Messrs Vision Guard Private Limited 5, Mathura Road, Jangpura A, New Delhi- 110014 28.06.199 6 25 Lacs 25 Lacs 25 Lacs 25 Lacs 37.74 Lacs As on 31.3.2004 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 11. Messrs PSU Finance Private Limited 301-302, Surya Tower, 31, DDA Commu- nity Centre, Paschim Vihar, N. Delhi-63 8.3.1995 100 Lacs 61.69 Lacs 61.69 Lacs 61.69 Lacs 2.33 Lacs as on 31.3.2005 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 0.28 Cr. Not avail- able Non Banking Company 0.01 Cr. Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 12. Messrs Cyber Approach B-36, Sector 31, Noida Not available Not available Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not available Not available Not avail- able Not available Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not available Not avail- able Not avail able Not available Not available Not available 13. Messrs MB International SCO 853, NAC, Kalka Road, Mani Majra, Chandi- garh 25.4.2001 100 Lacs 25.25 Lacs 25.25 Lacs 25.25 Lacs -37.66 Nil Gar- ment sour- cing & trad- ing Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 11 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 14. Messrs Land Mark Infonet (P) Limited A-11, Basemen t, C.R. Park, New delhi- 110019 5.12.2003 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs 1 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 25.00 Cr. Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 15. Messrs New Style Info System (P) Limited 79-A, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi- 110007 20.4.2005 25 Lacs 2 Lacs 2 Lacs 2 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Train- ing Insti- tute for IT and BPO Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 16. Messrs Tejaswini Implex (P) Limited 751, Kunde- walan Street, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi- 110006 5.4.2005 5 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able 1 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Steel Ven- ture Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 17. Messrs Acme Telepower Limited Plot No. 48, Sector 5, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana ) 14.1.2003 500 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able 200 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 35.15 Cr. Not avail- able Not avail- able 0.86 Cr. Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Owns plot 18. Messrs BSA Realtors Private Limited 511, Somdutt Chamber s II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066 10.3.2006 25 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 19. Messrs Petro IT (P) Limited 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi- 110020 5.3.2004 100 Lacs 80 Lacs 80 Lacs 80 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 12 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 20. Messrs Spanco Telesystems Limited B-22, Krishna Bhavan, DS Deoshi Marg Deonar Mumbai- 400088 20.3.1984 3000 Lacs 1582.45 Lacs 1582.45 Lacs 1582.45 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Tele- com/ BPO Not avail- able 61.95 Cr. (GC) 99.14 Cr. (GC) 217.02 Cr. (GC) Not avail- able Not avail- able 23.08 Cr. (PBT) (2005-06) Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 21. Messrs RGS Investments and Capital Services Private Limited B-17, Ashadee p, 9 Hailey Road, New Delhi- 110001 13.9.1994 30 Lacs 30 Lacs 30 Lacs 30 Lacs 6.83 Lacs as on 31.3.2005 Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 22. Messrs Kamlavallabh Developers Private Limited A 182 II Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 27.1.1997 10 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able 1.01 Lacs Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 23. Messrs Diwan Chand Satya Pal C/o Imaging Research Centre, 10-B, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, N. Delhi. Not available Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able Not avail- able 13 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 7. A perusal of the chart shows that respondent No. 7-M/s PD Education Private Limited has been incorporated only on 9.3.2006, which is after issuance of advertisement and a day before the last date of filing the application. The financial status of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 23 is extremely doubtful, inasmuch as, the issued and subscribed capital is either nil or too meagre. The petitioner-company has alleged that the State largesse has been distributed without complying with the minimum standards and principles envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution. As a result, the allotments have been made to the respondent property dealers, defunct, non-functional and loss making companies. It has also been alleged that no criteria before or after the allotment of plots in question has been formulated nor any comparative analysis of the applications was made. It is asserted that no reason for selecting or rejecting an application has been assigned by the Selection Committee. The petitioner-company has also placed on record various documents pertaining to private respondents as Annexures P- 8 to P-24 to establish that the claim of the petitioner-company is meritorious than most of the private respondents. There are serious allegations levelled by the petitioner to the effect that allotments have been made to property dealers and in favour of defunct/non- functional loss making companies; no criteria was made for allotment of plots in question; comparative analysis of the applicants was not done; no reasons for selecting or rejecting a company/applicant have been assigned by the Committee constituted for the purpose etc. 8. The stand taken by the private respondents in their 14 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 respective written statements is that the promoters of the Company or the Directors of the Company are otherwise financially sound and have share capital in other entities and private companies. Therefore, they have claimed that merely because there is low authorised capital or paid up capital in the name of the allottee companies would not be a circumstance which may constitute basis for concluding that the allottee companies are not qualified. 9. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned amicus curiae has pointed out that the institutional plots were sought to be allotted in Sectors 18, 32 and 44, Gurgaon and Sector 20A and 20B, Faridabad. The number of advertised plots do not tally with the number of plots allotted because allotments are more than the number of plots advertised. According to learned amicus curiae, the unacceptable explanation has been given that more plots were carved out after re-planning and adjustments. 10. He has argued that the applications filed by the allottees do not disclose any of the objectives or permissible uses announced by the brochure. According to learned counsel number of allottees have either no or very meagre authorised capital or paid up capital. He has also pointed out that the Committee does not comprise any member from the Corporate World nor there is any Financial Expert. Another argument advanced by the learned amicus curiae is that there were 382 applicants and interviews were conducted for 371 applicants, which were spread over 7 days. It is, thus, obvious that on an average 53 applicants were interviewed in one day. The recommendations made by the Selection Committee were formally approved by the officers of HUDA (R-1). He has further emphasised 15 C.W.P. No. 7790 of 2007 that the reply filed by the HUDA is very vague, inasmuch as, the stand taken is that sufficient time was given to each applicant at the time of interview. According to the learned counsel in a matter of this nature, the respondent HUDA should have filed definite reply in order to overcome and remove any lurking doubt from the mind of the Court. He has then referred to the applications of each of the allottees. For example he referred to the application sent by respondent No. 7 and has submitted that the Company was only incorporated a day or two days before the closing date for submitting the application. The closing date was 10.3.2006 whereas the Company was floated on 8.3.2006. Similar lacunas have been pointed out from the applications of various respondents, which are Annexures P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12. He has summed up by saying that from the allotments made to the private respondents a highly unconstitutional and woeful position has emerged which is very difficult for the respondents to defend. In respect of distribution of State largesse’s, learned amicus curiae has placed reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 (paras 11 and 13) and New India Public School v. HUDA, AIR 1996 SC 3458 (paras 5 and 6). He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case