IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 C.W.P. No. 9710 of 1999 Surjit Kumar Singla …Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents C.W.P. No. 6957 of 1998 Vijay Kumar … Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others … Respondents C.W.P. No. 17238 of 2001 M/s Kuldip Electric Works …Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigiarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner (In CWP No.9710 of 1999) Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner (In CWP No. 6957 of 1998) None for the petitioner (In CWP No.17238 of 2001) Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the respondents. Paramjeet Singh, J. The above mentioned three Civil Writ Petitions bearing CWP No. 9710 of 1999, 6957 of 1998 and 17238 of 2001 have CWP No.9710 of 1999 been listed together for hearing. All the above mentioned three Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 9710 of 1999. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 02.02.1999 (Annexure P/41) passed by the Allotment Committee, whereby request of the petitioner for allotment of Industrial Plot No. 727 of 10 Marlas category situated in the Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, has been declined in spite of the fact that the petitioner was successful in draw of lots held on 09.10.1979 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to deliver possession of the aforesaid industrial plot to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1977, the Administrator of Union Territory, Chandigarh, invited applications for allotment of Industrial Plots in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, at a concessional price of Rs.15/- per square yard on 99 years lease hold basis vide advertisement (Annexure P/1). Last date for submission of applications was 30.11.1977. The petitioner applied for allotment of plot and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- in favour of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner submitted scheme for manufacturing of Conduit Pipe and Electrical Fitting Pipe along 2 CWP No.9710 of 1999 with bends and sockets. It is the case of the petitioner that he was already working in a Conduit Pipe Factory at Chandigarh and had been learning the trade. The petitioner submitted application (Annexure P/2) and was subsequently asked to appear before the General Manager, District Industries Centre (respondent No.5). Later on, price was increased from Rs.15/- to Rs.35/- per square yard and the petitioner was asked to give consent for allotment of plot at the enhanced rate. In response to that, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 26.03.1979 (Annexure P/5) and deposited additional earnest money for allotment of 1 kanal plot. However, the Estate Officer conveyed to the petitioner about the Administration’s decision to consider the petitioner’s case for allotment of industrial plot of 10 Marlas and according to the decision of the Administration, the petitioner was asked to furnish some documents including affidavit. The petitioner immediately submitted those documents and the affidavit to the authorities. After about three years of the submission of the application, the petitioner received a letter from the Finance Secretary that in view of the negative recommendation of the Screening Committee, letter of intent with regard to Plot No. 727, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, cannot be issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations. Thereafter, a letter was 3 CWP No.9710 of 1999 received from the Estate Officer (Annexure P/17) asking him to supply the project report to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. The petitioner accordingly submitted and forwarded the same to the Industries Department. In spite of long delay and long drawn correspondence, the petitioner was not allotted the plot and his request for allotment of an Industrial Plot was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 6457 of 1994, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.1998 (Annexure P/31). The operative part of the order reads as under:- “For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for allotment of industrial plot is quashed with the direction that within 3 months of the submission of certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall take a fresh decision after getting his case reviewed by the Screening Committee, while doing so, the Screening Committee and the competent authority, shall keep in mind the fact that at least 5 applicants were allotted industrial plots of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” 4 CWP No.9710 of 1999 In order dated 27.10.1998, this Court had directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision after examining the case of the petitioner by the Screening Committee, keeping in mind the fact that at least five applicants were allotted industrial plots in spite of negative recommendations of the Screening Committee. Thereafter, again the case of the petitioner was examined and the petitioner was called for interview on 21.01.1999 along with the relevant record. The petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee and was informed that decision of the Screening Committee would be conveyed in short time. Thereafter, on 02.02.1999, the petitioner received a letter from the Estate Officer, on the direction of the Home Department, Chandigarh Administration, whereby he was informed that the Screening Committee of Chandigarh Administrator has rejected the claim of the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot No. 727, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Hence, this writ petition. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, filed its written statement wherein it is mentioned that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that the petitioner has no experience in the field of conduit pipe and conduit accessories. The Screening Committee has not 5 CWP No.9710 of 1999 recommended his case, so he cannot be allotted a plot. It is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted in paragraph no.25 of the written statement that the petitioner has submitted a new project which was forwarded to the District Industries Centre, Chandigarh. The petitioner was called for interview. Till date, no decision has been received in that regard. It is also admitted that while passing the order in CWP No. 6457 of 1994, Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed that five applicants were allotted industrial plots in spite of negative recommendations of the Screening Committee in their case, that aspect must be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner. In paragraph Nos. 48 and 49 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the files/relevant record of the five cases referred in the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court is not available. The Allotment Committee considered the question of allotment in five cases and the relevant part of the written statement in para 48 reads as under:- “…The Allotment Committee also considered the question of allotment in 5 cases. However, in the absence of files / relevant records the similarities 6 CWP No.9710 of 1999 between these 5 cases and the case of the petitioner could not be ascertained.” And similar averment is made in para 49(A) of the written statement, which reads as under:- “As has already been submitted above in the absence of the files / relevant records, the similarities between the 5 cases and the case of the petitioner could not be ascertained. The allotment of an Industrial Plot in these 5 cases were ordered by the Home Department. In the absence of files it was not possible to dwell as to under what circumstances the allotments of plots had been ordered by the Home Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh in these cases.” In nutshell, the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as projected from the contents of the written statement is that the Screening Committee had not recommended the allotment of plot to the petitioner on the ground that he has no experience of manufacturing conduit pipe and conduit accessories. In pursuance to the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the Estate Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an industrial plot. 7 CWP No.9710 of 1999 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This allotment issue is pending since 1977 and more than 34 years have elapsed. It is an admitted fact that plot No. 727 in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner in draw of lots. In this regard, the Finance Secretary had written a letter dated 27.08.1982, which reads as under:- “From The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration. To The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Memo No.5483-4(F) (3)-82/14264, Dated: 27.8.82 Sub: Allotment of Plot No. 727, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. It may please be clarified to under what circumstances the name of Shri Surjit K. Singla was included in the draw of lots despite the negative report of the Screening Committee. Supdt.Finance I For Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration” Thereafter, the petitioner continuously interacted with the respondents and he wrote letters from time to time. 8 CWP No.9710 of 1999 Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that new policy dated 28.04.2000 (Annexure R/1) has come into being. This policy is effective from 10.12.1990 and as per this policy, all those cases where possession of the plot could not be handed over and are still pending, will also be covered and considered. We are not convinced with this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that all the earlier policies have been repealed by way of present policy and it will not apply to the industrial plots retrospectively and it will apply to the plots possession of which has not been handed over, rather, it is to be henceforth applicable for allotment of plots/sheds to industrial houses for promotion of Information Technology, precision equipment, manufacturing, Electronic Industry related projects. The right of the petitioner accrued in the year 1977. Due to the lethargic and arbitrary attitude of the Administration, the plot has not been allotted to the petitioner. The policy is being changed after more than 33 years which will not affect the rights of the petitioner as he had already approached this Court earlier. This is a second round of litigation. The right of the petitioner has crystallized in view of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 6457 of 1994. So, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. 9 CWP No.9710 of 1999 Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has produced an experience certificate (Annexure P/14A) dated 07.02.1982 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that he was working with Gimko Industries which is manufacturing Electrical Conduit Pipes, Furniture Pipes and Steel Fabrication works and it is mentioned that the petitioner is fully expert technically in the manufacture of the above mentioned items. Even in the written statement, this fact has not been specifically denied, rather it is stated that in view of the submissions already made in the foregoing paragraphs, no further reply is needed. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement as to why the financial aspect of the petitioner, as well as, the documentary evidence regarding the experience has not been taken into consideration. The observations of the Screening Committee are without any basis. It has also been brought on record that the files of five cases of allottees who had been allotted plots in spite of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee, are stated to be missing. It is also admitted in paragraph no.25 of the written statement that the petitioner had submitted a new project which was forwarded to the District Industries Centre, Chandigarh and the petitioner was called for interview but as yet no decision has been received in this regard. 10 CWP No.9710 of 1999 In view of the above facts, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the Administration. On the asking of this Court, learned counsel for the respondents after seeking instructions from the official, who is present in the Court, has informed this Court that plot No. 727 (In CWP No. 9710 of 1999), plot No. 395 (in CWP No. 6957 of 1998) and plot No. 558 (in CWP No. 17238 of 2001) are still available and these plots were initially allotted to the petitioners in draw of lots. So, we are of the considered view that impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and we direct that the petitioners in all the three cases should be issued allotment letter of respective plots i.e. Plot No. 727 in CWP No. 9710 of 1999, plot No. 395 in CWP No. 6957 of 1998 and plot No. 558 in CWP No. 17238 of 2001 and be delivered possession subject to making payment in accordance with law or as per the schedule given by the Union Territory, Administration. In view of the above, all the three writ petitions are allowed. No costs. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 01, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkd JUDGE 11