Civil Writ Petition No. 14022 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14022 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.01.2011 M/s Ruchi Textiles .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate for Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims to be running Small Scale Dyeing Unit in the city of Panipat. In the year 2001-02, the State Government had carried out a survey in the city. As per this survey, 494 units were identified, which were still operating. As claimed by the petitioner, his name appeared at serial No. 426 though erroneously his name was mentioned as Shyam Krishna Handloom Industries, which was run by his father. These units have been re-allocated to a particular area in Sector 29 Part-II and Sector 30, Panipat, which have been developed by HUDA. In a meeting of Environment Protection Council held on 22.11.2001, the matter of reallocation of polluting Dyeing Units was again considered and it was decided that assistance of the Industries Department by the State be also sought. Civil Writ Petition No. 14022 of 2009 2 It was decided that the units, which are to be shifted to the new Industrial Area, be allotted land on “No Profit No Loss” basis. A list of 494 units, which was identified by the survey were identified for reallotment of plots in the new Industrial Area for the purpose of reallocation. 310 units were found to have applied for allotment of land in the newly developed Sector 29, Part-II. It was decided that such units, which had closed down after identification but did not apply earlier, may be afforded another opportunity to apply. The respondent/HUDA notified the revised rates of Industrial plots and public notice was also issued. Only those 494 units were given last opportunity to apply again. It was also stated that such units, who had failed to avail the allotment for the last 5 years and had failed to make application by the closing dates then it would be presumed that they are not interested in allotment of plots. The petitioner was not issued application form for allotment. Aggrieved against the same, he filed the writ petition before this Court. 8 plots were found to be allotted to the firms, which were not included in the survey list. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, with the direction to consider the eligible claim of the units for allotment. The petitioner was issued interview letter but in the name of Shyam Krishna Handloom. The petitioner claims to be running a separate unit. Accordingly, he has filed this writ petition to make a claim for allotment of the plot separately for Ms. Ruchi Textiles formerly known as Nokia Textiles. In the reply filed, the averments made in the writ petition have been controverted. However, the counsel for the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No. 14022 of 2009 3 restricted his prayer at the time of argument to urge that he will be satisfied in case the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider this factual matrix whether he was running this industry separately prior to 2001 and, thus, would be eligible for allotment of plot or not. This request, apparently, seems fair. Let respondent No. 2 consider and decide whether the petitioner had an existing separate unit prior to 2001 and on that basis whether he would be eligible for consideration for allotment of plot in terms of the policy so formulated or not. The decision taken, if any, shall be communicated to the petitioner, who would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may also be afforded an opportunity of hearing to ensure compliance of principal of natural justice. January 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE