HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.14274 of 2011 Date : 14-12-2011 Between: V. Muthu s/o. Adeyapaharaya and others .. Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri P. Roy Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in allotting industrial plots in S.V. Auto Nagar, Tirupati, by adopting pick and choose method and rejecting the petitioners’ applications as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to allot the plots as per the seniority of registration. The petitioners averred that they are running small mechanic sheds/work shops abutting the main road in Tirupati City; that they were enrolled as members in the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short “the Corporation”) by paying membership fee of Rs.100/- each for allotment of plots and that similarly placed persons have formed into an association by name S.V. Auto Nagar Association and submitted their applications duly paying the requisite earnest money for allotment of plots in S.V. Auto Nagar. The petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the plots allotted. It is further the pleaded case of the petitioners that ignoring their applications for allotment of plots, respondent No.2 has allotted plots in favour of certain persons who applied for such allotment much later and that a detailed representation was submitted on 3-5-2011 before respondent No.2 with a request to him to allot plots in their favour. As there was no response from respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, the General Manager – AM (Law) of respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the main objectives of respondent No.1 amongst others are, acquisition and development of lands, providing infrastructure facilities in the State of Andhra Pradesh and allotment of plots/sheds to entrepreneurs in industrial areas for industrial purposes. The counter-affidavit denied the allegation that the petitioners were enrolled as members before respondent No.2. It has also denied the allegation that the respondents are adopting pick and choose method in allotting the plots at S.V. Auto Nagar and that the applications filed by some of the auto technicians during March 2009 were rejected as there were no vacant plots at Auto Nagar at that time. It is further averred that mere payment of earnest money along with the applications will not automatically entitle the applicants for allotment of the industrial plots and that the Plot Allotment Committee in its meeting dated 3-5-2010, allotted plots to certain eligible persons and rejected the petitioners’ applications for allotment of 100 sq. meters of land each in view of non-availability of the plots of that size and their earnest money deposits were duly refunded. I have heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. As the petitioners have made specific allegations in their representation dated 3-5-2011 to the effect that plots were allotted to the family members of the employees of the Corporation at least six instances and the said allegations were not specifically adverted to in the counter-affidavit, this Court called upon the respondents to file an additional counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the General Manager–AM (Law) of the Corporation filed an additional counter-affidavit wherein the details of allotments referred to in the petitioners’ representation have been given. A perusal of these details would show that out of six plots, four plots i.e., plot Nos.111, 156, 146 and 311 were allotted to the family members of the employees of the Corporation and that plot No.151 was allotted to a person who hired his vehicle to the Corporation. As far as the claim of the petitioners that rejection of their applications is improper and illegal, the same is not substantiated by any material. The respondents have pleaded that the Plot Allotment Committee examines the applications for allotment of plots in terms of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Industrial Areas Allotment Regulations, 1998 (for short “the Regulations). Unless the petitioners point out the specific areas of violation of these Regulations with reference to the allotments made by the Corporation, it is not possible for this Court to declare the allotments made by it as illegal. Similarly, it is not possible for this Court to reject the averment of the respondents that as the plots of 100 sq. meters size were not available, the petitioners’ applications were rejected. As noted above, the respondents have taken a specific plea that as at present no plots are vacant. In the light of these facts which remained uncontroverted, no direction to the respondents to allot plots in favour of the petitioners can be granted. Before parting with this case, it requires to be mentioned that the Regulations of the Corporation do not appear to contain any bar on the allotment of plots in favour of the family members of its employees. As noted above, as many as four plots were allotted in favour of the family members of the employees of the Corporation. Even if those allotments were assumed to have been made strictly on the basis of their merit, they would tend to create an impression in the public that the Corporation has indulged in extending favoured treatment to the family members of its employees. Creation of such an impression by a public undertaking, which is an organ of the State, does not augur well in a society governed by rule of law. More often, absence of a bar on the allotment of plots to the family members of the employees of the Corporation may lead to abuse of discretion of the Corporation in favour of its employees. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Corporation needs to have a fresh look at the existing Regulations and may consider incorporation of a clause creating a bar on the allotment of plots in favour of the family members and nearest relatives of its employees. Such a measure would dispel the misgivings in the minds of the general public on the impartiality of the Corporation in allotting the plots. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.17221/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 14-12-2011 AM