Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.03.2011 M/s Swadeshi Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. & others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents 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. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Jangra, Advocate, (in CWP No.6006 of 2010) for the petitioner(s). Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate (in CWP No.6006 of 2010) Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate (in CWP No.1471 of 2010) for respondent Nos.2 & 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners in CWP Nos. 14638, 12558, 15112, 15660 of 2009 and 1471 and 6006 of 2010, are the persons who are running dying units at Panipat. They have approached this Court through these writ petitions primarily to challenge the rate at which industrial plots are allotted to them in the earmarked area for dying Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -2- units. Their grievance is that these plots should be allotted to them at the rate, which was originally published in a notice on 11.7.2007 as they were wrongly denied allotment earlier though they were eligible and are having orders in their favour regarding their right to allotment. Sinceidentical ground of challenge is raised in all these writ petitions, these are being disposed of through this common order. Facts have been taken from CWP No.14638 of 2009. The petitioners in this case and other writ petitions were operating in the City of Panipat from the residential area or non- confirming areas. The respondent-State had carried out a survey of such Units and included list of 494 units in the survey, which were found to be operating from non-confirming areas. The petitioners are those, whose names appeared in the survey list. The respondent- State then carved out Sector 29, Part II, Panipat, as Dyeing Sector for relocation of plots dealing with dyeing units. The petitioners had applied for allotment of the plots in response to publication made on 11.7.2007 by depositing the requisite earnest money in the year 2007, but their applications were retuned by the respondent-HUDA. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of on 11.12.2008. The Division Bench of this Court mainly issued two directions, which would be relevant to notice for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petitions. It was noticed that ultimate object of establishing Dyeing Zone is to shift the polluting dyeing and printing units from the residential and non-confirming zones of Panipat town. The purpose Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -3- of carving out new sector is, accordingly, noticed. This being the requirement, the Division Bench had observed that all the petitioners would require to be rehabilitated on the earmarked land purposely developed for them. The Bench, accordingly, was of the view that the petitioners, whose names had figured in the survey list, would be fully entitled to apply for plot of the requisite sizes in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007. Through this notice, the applications had been invited for allotment of plots in the Dyeing Zone. The Bench also noticed that 494 units had been so identified and recommendations were, accordingly, made even about the size of the plots. The Court had then clarified that the Chief Administrator HUDA shall also decide in principle the sizes of the plots, which should be allotted to such persons and as to whether they would be considered in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007 or their applications could be considered independent of that. It is this part of the order, which has led to the present litigation. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that through this part of the order, the Court had only required of Chief Administrator HUDA to decide in principle the sizes of plots, which were to be allotted to various units. As the entitlement of the allotment had already been recognized in the earlier part of the order, these plots were to be allotted at the rate, which was given in the advertisement/ notice dated 11.7.2007. The petitioners though have been allotted the plots, but the rate charged is ` 2000/- per sq. mtr. and ` 3,000/- per sq. mtr. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -4- for bigger sizes of plots. The petitioners have felt aggrieved against this and would plead that once their entitlement is recognized in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007, the allotment of the plots should also be at the rates, which were so advertised and not in the prevalent rate. Their grievance is that in case, they have to pay the present prevalent rate then it may virtually mean that their right to allotment as allowed by this Court is nullified. The submission is that the relief granted to them would become redundant. The respondents, however, would oppose this plea. As per the respondents, the Division Bench while disposing of the earlier writ petition had clearly left discretion with Chief Administrator HUDA to decide not only about the sizes of plots, but even the rates also. The respondent would also point out that it has incurred a liability of ` 20 crores towards the construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CETP’), which has been constructed for benefit of all the industrial wastage coming out of Dyeing Units. Perhaps this plea is raised to highlight that the rates have been fixed keeping in view the expenditure incurred by HUDA. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The counsel have drawn my attention to the part of the order, where right of the petitioners to apply for a different requisite sizes of plots pursuant to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007 has been recognized. The petitioners are the one, who had in fact submitted the applications pursuant to this advertisement. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -5- Their applications were not entertained and were returned or rejected, though they had a right to seek allotment of plots. This gave them a cause of grievance to approach this Court. Once this Court had recognized the entitlement of the petitioners to allotment of plots and they had submitted their applications for allotment pursuant to the advertisement/ notice dated 11.7.2007, they cannot be put to prejudice in the manner as is sought to be done. If this is allowed, then the relief granted to the petitioners would be rendered futile. The respondents cannot be permitted to behave in this unfair manner. The petitioners were eligible for allotment. They had applied for it. Their applications were wrongly rejected. This Court found that they are entitled to allotment. Thus, it is a situation where a person first is denied his rightful claim and thereafter, is penalized for the delay by asking him to pay the price which is prevailing. This approach would not be fair. It is respondent HUDA which did not consider their cases properly and now wants to get premium over their wrongs. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of the illegal action of HUDA and asked to pay the extra price due to the delay in allotment. The petitioner then would suffer double disadvantage. Firstly, they could not get plots in time and secondly they would be asked to pay more without any fault on their parts. Even otherwise, once their right is recognized and their names were found in the survey list prepared at that time, HUDA was not justified in rejecting their claims. Let us examine order to understand what was the nature of direction earlier issued by this Court. The Court had primarily Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -6- issued two directions, which were as under:- “The ultimate object of establishing the ‘Dyeing Zone’ is to shift the polluting dyeing and printing units from the residential and non-conforming zone of Panipat Town to the newly carved out Dyeing Zone in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat, so as to bring clean environment and to obviate the possibility of contamination of ground water. If that be so, then to accept that the petitioners would not require to be rehabilitated on the earmarked land purposely developed for them would not be acceptable. We are of the view that the petitioners whose names figured in the survey list would be fully entitled to apply for plot of requisite size in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007, which has invited applications for allotment of such plots in the ‘Dyeing Zone’. The benefit of survey list made by the Survey Team, who have identified 494 dyeing and printing units and has made recommendation in respect of others regarding size of plots, has to be given to such persons. The Chief Administrator shall also decide in principle the size of the plots which should be allotted to such persons and as to whether they would be considered in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007 or their applications could be considered independent of that. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” The underlined portion of the earlier part of the direction as noted above would clearly show that the petitioners whose names figured in the survey list, were held fully entitled to apply for plot of Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -7- requisite size in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007. Once such applicants, whose names had figured in the survey list, were held entitled to plot as per advertisement issued on 11.7.2007, they cannot be asked to pay a different price that was payable or determined in the said advertisement. Having held them eligible and entitled to allotment, the Court obviously was requiring the Chief Administrator to decide in principle the size of the plots, which should be allotted to such persons, which apparently is the purpose of second part of the direction/observation of the Court. Having held such persons entitled to allotment pursuant to an advertisement, the Court obviously would not leave any discretion with the Chief Administrator to determine the rate of plots. Since the petitioners were held entitled to allotment of plot in terms of the advertisement dated 11.7.2007, the rates which were given in the said advertisement, would be payable by them. Accordingly, the second part of the order reproduced above, cannot be read to mean that the Chief Administrator was given liberty also to decide about the rates at which the plots were to be allotted. I am, thus, of the considered view that the petitioners have a right to seek allotment of plot at the rates, which were advertised in the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007 and thus, have made out a case in this regard. The writ petitions except CWP No.6006 of 2010 are, accordingly, allowed. It is pointed out by the counsel that 50% of the price has already been deposited by some of the petitioners. All the petitioners shall undertake to pay the remaining amount in terms of the allotment letters. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2009 -8- CWP No.6006 of 2010 This case is slightly different from other cases as noted above here. The petitioner in this case had not filed any application in pursuant to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007. He had also not filed a writ petition before this Court. The petitioner is, however, a person, who has applied for allotment of plot on the ground that his name was listed in the survey list and had made an application in pursuant to the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the Chief Administrator on the basis of CWP No.11839 of 2007, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court as noted above. Since the petitioner had made this application for allotment of plot after issuance of this order, his case cannot be equated with those, who had filed other writ petitions. In my view to balance the equities, the petitioner can be asked to pay interest at the rate given in advertisement dated 11.7.2007 for a period of two years @ 9% per annum, HUDA would calculate the amount payable by the petitioner on this basis and intimate to him the total amount and the mode of payment thereof in terms of the allotment letter issued in his favour. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE