C.W.P. No. 7517 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7517 of 1988 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Subhash Chandra ..............Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ................Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana RANJAN GOGOI,J.(oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to compel the respondents to allot an appropriate plot to the petitioner in Transport Nagar, Panipat. The facts in short are as follows:- The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, submitted an application pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers published on March 31, 1987 by which applications for plots measuring 6M X 18 M and 6M X 30 M for booking Agencies in Transport Nagar, Panipat on free hold basis were invited. According to the petitioner he had submitted his application on 1.4.1987 wherein he had applied for two plots i.e. Plot No. 209 and 210. The petitioner also claims that 10 per cent of the price of the plots amounting to Rs.10,800/- was deposited and that the petitioner was the fourth person to submit his application pursuant to the advertisement which had clearly stipulated that the allotment will be made on first come on first served basis. Thereafter, according to the petitioner by a communication dated 1.2.1988 (Annexure P-5) the earnest money deposited by the C.W.P. No. 7517 of 1988 2 petitioner was refunded. Consequently the writ petition was filed seeking the direction as noticed above. The respondents have filed a written statement wherein it has been stated that the advertisement in question was challenged by the members of the Goods Transport Association before this Court by filing a writ petition registered and numbered as C.W.P. No. 2147 of 1987. According to the respondents in the said writ petition an undertaking was made by the respondent State to the effect that plots will be allotted to the existing transporters at Panipat. There was, therefore, no alternative but to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner so as to honour the undertaking made before the court. No allotment of any particular plot was made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had merely submitted an application alongwith the required deposit. The above act on the part of the respondent will not vest in him any legal right to allotment. In the present case the process of allotment of plots seems to have been abandoned because of the undertaking given before the court. If that be so, the court cannot understand that the decision of the respondents to return the earnest money to the petitioner was on account of any extraneous or irrelevant consideration so as to warrant interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, this writ petition is found to be without any merit and substance. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE November 30, 2010 RSK C.W.P. No. 7517 of 1988 3