LPA 2044 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 2044 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision 9.11.2011 Ram Kumar Aggarwal . Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr, Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, Acg.CJ. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 1.6.2011 rendered the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot the appellant- petitioner a plot measuring 14 marlas in Sector 17, Jagadhri by implementing the letter dated 1.5.1987 issued on 18.5.1987 (P.1). The aforesaid letter has been sent by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh- respondent no.2 to the appellant- petitioner informing him that the Government of Haryana had decided to allot a residential plot measuring 14 marlas in Sector 17 Jagadhri. The only condition imposed in the aforesaid letter was that the appellant- petitioner did not have any other plot or house in Urban Estate, Jagadhri in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of the family member dependent upon him. It has not been disputed that the plot has been allotted out of the discretionary quota carved out by the respondent- State of Haryana. As per the averments made in para 2 of the writ petition the then LPA 2044 of 2011 2 Minister, Haryana Urban Development had directed the allotment of plot No. 1065 in Sector 17 at Jagadhri. The allotment was made after the appellant- petitioner had applied for a residential plot in Sector 17, Jagadhri from the discretionary quota. A total number of 1- plots measuring 14 marlas in Sector 17, Jagadhri were kept under the discretionary quota. It has also been pointed out in para 5 of the petition that the new Government headed by Ch. Devi Lal had cancelled the allotment of discretionary quota plots and further letter of offer could not be issued. 2. In the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 it has been stated that the appellant- petitioner was required to submit an affidavit within stipulated period which has not been done even till today. Therefore no allotment could be made. It has also been asserted that once the conditions have been not complied with by the appellant -petitioner then the respondents cannot be expected to comply with the so called order of allotment (P.1). 3. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the view that the State largess cannot be distributed by pick and choose method. For allotment of plot carved out of the government land, it was imperative for the respondent to follow the principles of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. On our repeated queries, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner has not been able to state that any advertisement was issued inviting applications. If the transparency in the procedure for allotment of plots has not been maintained then there is no possibility for issuing any direction for allotment of plot to the appellant- petitioner. The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 would be shattered if any one is permitted LPA 2044 of 2011 3 to take away the benefit of the State largess in a clandestine manner. There is no merit in the appeal and the same does not warrant admission. Accordingly we uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Acting Chief Justice (Augustine George Masih) 9.11.2011 Judge okg