IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2007 Date of Decision: 05.10.2009 M/s Standford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Amand Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 29.6.2005 (P6), ordering resumption of the plot, allotted to them on 1.5.2000/ 25.5.2000, be quashed. Further challenge is to the order dated 16.6.2006 (P7), dismissing appeal filed by the petitioners. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the records that initially, plot measuring 256 sq. yards was allotted to the petitioner No.1 on 1.5.2000. There was some dispute regarding possession, on account of that petitioner was re-allotted plot No.246 vide letter dated 25.5.2000. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.7.2000 and possession was delivered to the petitioner on 22.9.2000. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the petitioner was to set up a Pharmaceutical Specialty unit, within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the plot to it i.e. upto 24.5.2003. It is coming out from reading of the contents of order dated 29.6.2005 that Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2007 the plot was resumed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to set up its unit within the stipulated period and further that it has failed to pay an amount of Rs.95,040/- towards enhanced price/ compensation for the plot in question within the cut off date. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No.1 had established the unit within the permissible period, it was operational and electric connection was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioners much before the stipulated date. Averments to that extent have been made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of this writ petition. Counsel further submits that in the meantime, petitioner No.1 also sold the plot to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 14.6.2005, thereafter an application to transfer that plot was also made, to the respondents, however, it was not approved. After getting the resumption order, a joint appeal was filed by all the petitioners before the appellate authority, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2006 on the ground that the appeal was filed only by the purchaser, with whom the respondent –Corporation has no privity of contract. Counsel for the respondents states that be that it may, after passing of the order, mentioned above, by the appellate authority, on a representation made by the petitioners, the matter was re-considered and vide order dated 22.9.2008 (R5), resumption order was upheld. Perusal of appellate order initially passed and the subsequent order dated 22.9.2008 indicates that the contentions raised by the petitioner that it had set up the unit within the stipulated period and it was also granted an electric connection and other formalities to run the unit much before the cut off date, were not considered. This Court feels that a valuable right of the petitioner, to retain the property is involved and they deserve a proper opportunity of hearing before resumption order is affirmed by the appellate 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2007 authority. In paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the writ petition, detail has been given as to when the petitioner’s unit became operational and other formalities were completed. In reply to the above said averments, in the written statement, some contents were admitted, however, rest of the averments have been controverted. Be that as it may, this Court feels that if proper opportunity is given to the petitioner, it will not cause any loss to either of the parties. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed, order passed by the appellate authority on 19.5.2000 and subsequent order passed on 22.9.2008 are set aside. The petitioners are directed to put in appearance before the appellate authority on 9.11.2009. The petitioners shall produce evidence to prove that they have commenced their unit within the stipulated period and there was no lapse on their part, on the basis of which, resumption could have been ordered. If the petitioners are capable of doing that, the appellate authority may consider recalling of the resumption order and if to the contrary, the appellate authority may affirm the order of resumption. Till such time, decision is rendered by the appellate authority, parties are directed to maintain status quo, as it exists at the spot today. 05.10.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3