1 S/1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETTION NO.2500/2009. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation & Anr. ..... S/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETTION NO.2501/2009. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation & Anr. .... Date of Order :: 25th March 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.N. Trivedi, for the petitioners. ..... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, CWP Nos. 2500/2009 and 2501/2009, and having perused the material placed on the records of these writ petitions having inter-connected facts and common features, this Court is clearly of opinion that the petitions remain absolutely bereft of substance; and is unable to find even a wee bit of justification for interference. Put in a nutshell, the relevant background aspects in these two writ petitions are that the petitioners are the women entrepreneurs having been allotted the plots for industrial 2 purposes in the Phalodi Industrial Area by the respondent Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited ('the RIICO'); the petitioners in CWP No. 2500/2009 were allotted plot No. F-47 (A) whereas the petitioner in CWP No. 2501/2009 was allotted plot No. F-47 (B). The case of the petitioners is that the area of plot No. F-47 (A) was 2982 sq. mtrs. and that of plot No. F-47 (B) 3586 sq. mtrs.; and lease deeds were executed on 18.03.1994. The petitioners submit that they had raised construction and had been running the industry on the said plots but then, the respondent RIICO illegally proceeded to alter the size of the plots and thereafter proceeded to cancel the allotments. However, the petitioners point out, on representation having been made, the RIICO proceeded to restore the allotments in their favour. It is submitted that by way of alteration of the site plan, the plots aforesaid were reduced in size to the extent of about 80 sq. mtrs. in relation to CWP No. 2500/2009 and about 1080 sq. mtrs. in relation to CWP No. 2501/2009; and the petitioners made the representation that they ought to be given the land to the extent allotted and as per the lease deeds but the respondent RIICO is yet to do so. It is also pointed out that with the change of site plan, 3 the respondent RIICO proceeded to carve out another plot No. 25-B from out of the land allotted to the petitioners and under the force of circumstances, the petitioner of CWP No. 2501/2009 put her bid in auction for purchasing the said plot No.25-B. With reference to the facts aforesaid, the cause for filing these writ petition has been stated in the manner that the respondent RIICO has proceeded to issue fresh notice for the purpose of auction of certain plots in the said Phalodi Industrial Area and with reference to the advertisement dated 26.02.2009 (Annex.6 in CWP No.2500/2009), it is alleged that three plots bearing numbers CP-5, CP-6 and CP-6A have been advertised for auction but they are the only remaining plots of land in the said industrial area. The petitioners contend that their claim for being provided the land to the extent and measurement as per the original allotment and lease deed remains due and before meeting with their claim, if the respondent RIICO would proceed to auction the said plots, nothing would remain to be allotted to them in the said industrial area and, in that event, they would suffer substantial injury and shall be driven to unnecessary other litigation like that of claim of damages. It is submitted that in the given fact situation and standing the claim of the petitioners, the said 4 auction deserves to be prohibited. It is also alleged that the respondent RIICO has not correctly put the plots to advertisement and, with reference to the document Annexure-7 (CWP No. 2500/2009), it is alleged that on the concerned web-site, different plot numbers have been mentioned with different measurements. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners do not make out any case for interference in relation to the auction proceedings as taken up by the respondent RIICO under the advertisements aforesaid. In fact, the very fundamental of the claim of the petitioners, about the plot size having been reduced and themselves having not been given the land to the extent allotted, rather seems to be shaky and uncertain. The petitioners have referred to a joint representation said to have been made by them on 25.04.2005, a copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annexure-4 in CWP No. 2501/2009, in regard to their claim for allotment of the requisite land. The said representation does not support the submissions as sought to be made; and rather give out the suggestions different. The said representation was made essentially questioning the cancellation of allotments and while putting 5 questions on the change of shape of the plots and while pointing out that it was due to such change of shape of plots that the construction earlier raised by them fell outside the plot area, the petitioners, inter alia, suggested in the said representation thus: “1. Your department gave the reason of cancellation of these allotments that our construction is not within our plot limits but the fact is that your department has changed the shape of these plots. All sides have been changed. We are going to show you these changes. Please have a look at it:- a. Changed shape of plot F47-A: Length has changed from 71 mt. to 73.35 mt. for one side and from 71mt to 83 mt opposite side. Width is also changed in this way: One side has been reduced from 42 mt to 33.50 mt and opposite side has been changed from 42mt to 42.90 mt. b. Changed shape of plot F47-B: - Length has changed from 75mt. to 62 mt. for one side. Width is also changed in this way: One side has been changed from 38 mt. to 44.60 mt and opposite side has been changed from 63mt to 71.10 mt. Map of the site is enclosed here with (Annexure- 1). Due to changed shape of said plots, our construction obviously comes outside our plot area that is allotted to us. Why these changes have been made, we are not able to understand even after issue of PMT Certificate. It does not seem justified. Please give justification for these changes. We are continuously and repeatedly in touch with your department since 1999, but still we have not got any significant response from 6 your department.” The petitioners further wondered as to why the plot sizes were changed and also pointed that when the alleged extra land was put up for sale, nobody else came forward to buy the same and ultimately they purchased the said plot bearing number 25-B while stating,- “One more thing comes in our mind that after changing the shape of these plots, your department adopted the process of Auction to put up the extra land for sale. After changing the shape, extra land was made another plot no. 25- B. While the process of Auction, nobody came to buy this plot because everyone (General Public) knows that constructed and allotted plot must not be resold by anyhow so what happened in this context, ultimately we purchased this plot (Plot No. 25-B).” It is difficult to make out a clear and specific case from the said representation that the petitioners were aggrieved of so-called reduction of the size of their plots. The significant aspect of the matter is that under the identical communications dated 04.08.2006, the respondent RIICO did restore the allotment of the respective plots in favour of the petitioners. The said communication was issued as back as on 04.08.2006 and it is not borne out on the record if the petitioners thereafter, for over 2½ years, took any specific proceeding in relation to their alleged grievance of 7 reduction of plot sizes. The petitioners have chosen to approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction only upon issuance of the advertisements in question whereby different plots have been advertised for auction sale by the respondent RIICO. The suggestion as made in these writ petitions, about the petitioners having a subsisting claim of been allotted the plots to the sizes they were allotted, even if taken into consideration for the sake of it, is difficult to be co-related with the advertisements in question. The petitioners have no vested right in relation to the particular plots that have been advertised for auction and the supposed but unsubstantiated and hitherto dormant claim of the petitioners cannot be a reason for any interference in the auction of the said plots. Noteworthy it is that in relation to the auction in question, a representation was allegedly made by the petitioner of CWP No. 2501/2009 on 04.03.2009 that has been placed on the record of CWP No. 2500/2009 as Annexure-8. The significant aspect of the matter is that there is not even a whisper in the said representation dated 04.03.2009 about the alleged claim of the petitioners, of the reduction of their plot size and of their claim for appropriate land. Rather, the representation states the grievance of the petitioners about the inconsistencies in 8 the advertisement published in the local newspaper and the information as uploaded on the web-site and about the want of requisite time to the public for participating in the auction. In the face of such representation dated 04.03.2009, the suggestions as made in these writ petitions turn out to be rather doubtful and do not inspire confidence. The suggestion about some inconsistencies and about some incongruity in the information uploaded on the web-site and the newspaper advertisement hardly makes out a case for interference at the instance of the petitioners. The information as placed on record as Annexure-7 (in CWP No. 2500/2009) relates to different portions of land, as comprised in Plot Nos. E-93 (B) as an industrial plot and Plots Nos. S-24, S-25, S-28 and S-29 as commercial plots at the said Phalodi Industrial Area. The newspaper advertisement only relates to the commercial plots which carry different numbers and different measurements. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that the information regarding the plots advertised under the auction notice dated 26.02.2009 has not been uploaded on the web-site, that could hardly be a reason for nullifying the auction proceedings particularly when it is otherwise pointed out that the auction notice has been duly published in local newspaper. 9 In any case, as pointed above, the petitioners, only on the basis of their alleged claim, do not have any right to question the auction proceedings in relation to the other plots in the said industrial area. For the reasons foregoing, these writ petitions do not merit admission and are, therefore, rejected. After dictation of this order, learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that in the given fact situation, the petitioners if make representation in relation to their grievance, the respondent RIICO may be directed to decide the same. In this regard, suffice is to say that these writ petitions, essentially filed in relation to the advertisements aforesaid, have not been entertained for the reasons foregoing and else, if the petitioners have any grievance to suggest before the respondent RIICO and seek to make a representation, no any observation is required from the Court. The parties are free to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/