CWP No.7320 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7320 of 1988 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 M/s Talwar Enterprises ..... Petitioner Versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner in Udyog Vihar Gurgaon, Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent, the petitioner applied for an industrial plot on 12.03.1983. The petitioner appended a demand draft of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousands only) alongwith the application. The petitioner received a letter dated 15.04.1983, accepting the application and asking the petitioner to forward the project profile and any other information as may be necessary. The petitioner forwarded a reply dated 19.04.1983, informing the respondent that the project profile has already been sent alongwith the CWP No.7320 of 1988 -2- application dated 12.03.1983. Vide letter dated 19.07.1983, the petitioner was invited for discussion/interview before the screening committee, on 28.07.1983. The petitioner appeared before the committee on 28.07.1983 and was interviewed. The petitioner sent a letter, dated 08.02.1984, inquiring about the fate of his application. A reminder was sent to the respondent on 29.03.1984. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 08.05.1985 that as his project has not been approved, the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of a plot. The petitioner was advised to apply for refund and by sending a duly stamped advance receipt. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application was not considered as he was never asked to submit any clarification with respect to his project. The respondent has adopted a pick and choose policy and allotted plots for reasons other than the merits of the project. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests by the petitioner to furnish reasons for rejection of his application, the respondent has failed to come forward with any tenable explanation. It is further submitted that as the respondent deals with public property, it is required to furnish reasons while stating that a project is not viable or is not acceptable. No-one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paper- book including the reply filed by the respondent and find no reason to interfere or grant any relief to the petitioner except to the extent of CWP No.7320 of 1988 -3- directing the respondent to refund the amount paid by the petitioner. The petitioner's application for allotment of an industrial plot was rejected as his project was not found viable. The averments in the petition, do not lay any foundation for the plea that rejection was in any manner illegal, arbitrary or contrary to any criteria that may have been framed by the respondent. Apart from alleging that as his project is feasible it could not be rejected, the petitioner has failed to place on record any material to establish that allotments were made without an eligibility criteria or to such persons who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is true that before proceeding to allot plots, a public authority, is required to frame an eligibility criteria and thereafter assess merits and demerits of applicants, on the basis of the eligibility criteria, so framed. The respondent has, in its written statement, specifically averred that the petitioner's project was found not suitable. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to even prima facie suggest as to in what manner the assessment of suitability is illegal or arbitrary. As a consequence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief with respect to the allotment of a plot. In so far as the petitioner's alternative prayer, for refund, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the deposited amount. The petitioner was asked by the respondent to seek refund by forwarding a duly stamped receipt in duplicate. The petitioner, however, chose not to seek refund but instead initiated the present litigation. The petitioner may have been remiss in not forwarding the duly stamped receipt but as CWP No.7320 of 1988 -4- he choose to file a writ petition and as the amount is lying with the respondent, the respondents are directed to refund Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousands only) with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of letter dated 08.05.1985 to the date of payment. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 12.10.2011 [ NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ] shamsher JUDGE