IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1718 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 27, 2008 M/s Associated Label Industries (P) Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Industries, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner Company has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing letter dated 12.1.2005 (P-9), order dated 18.5.2005 (P-11) and another order dated 26.9.2006 (P-12). C.W.P. No. 1718 of 2007 The petitioner Company was allotted an industrial plot on 24.5.2004 by Regular Letter of Allotment (P-2), inter alia, with a stipulation that it was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,31,875/- in favour of the Estate Division, HSIDC in order to complete 25% of the price of the plot/shed, which included Rs. 2,25,000/- already paid by the petitioner Company alongwith the application. The period of 30 days was extendable maximum by another period of 30 days in case the allottee makes the payment of 15% costs of the plot alongwith interest @ 11% per annum for the delayed payment. However, the petitioner Company filed an application on 16.6.2004 (P-3) for change of plot. The respondent Corporation on account of revision in the zoning plan, as per the decision of the Allotment Committee dated 7.6.2004, issued a letter dated 26.7.2004 (P-4) to the petitioner Company stating that its plot number has been changed from Plot No. 254, Sector 8 to Plot No. 313, Sector 8, Industrial Estate, IMT, Manesar, of the same size. It was further stated that the Regular Letter of Allotment dated 24.5.2004 (P-2), thus, may be treated to have been issued in respect of Plot No. 313, Sector 8, Industrial Estate, IMT, Manesar. The other terms and conditions of the Regular Letter of Allotment dated 24.5.2004 were to remain unchanged. It was further requested by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner to deposit 15% of the price of the plot immediately alongwith interest @ 11% from 22.6.2004 till the date of payment. The petitioner Company still failed to make the payment within the period stipulated and deposited the amount on 2.9.2004, 2 C.W.P. No. 1718 of 2007 vide Demand Draft dated 30.8.2004. However, the same was not accepted and the allotment has been cancelled by order dated 12.1.2005 (P-9) and the amount paid by the petitioner Company has been refunded. The petitioner Company again represented to the respondent Corporation for reconsideration of the matter, which was declined vide order dated 18.5.2005 (P-11). Likewise, the Appellate Committee has also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner Company vide order dated 26.9.2006 (P-12). However, the petitioner Company was offered re-allotment on the current price, which was not agreed to. When the matter came up before us, learned counsel for the petitioner Company again sought time to seek instructions as to whether it was prepared to accept the plot at the current market price in terms of order dated 26.9.2006 (P-12). The petitioner Company, however, refused to accept the plot at current market price. Primary reliance has been placed by the petitioner Company on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of At Home India Pvt. Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and others (C.W.P. No. 14495 of 2006, decided on 5.12.2006, Annexure P-13), wherein this Court has taken the view that once the allottee is prepared to pay the amount due even after some time then the Corporation was under obligation to accept the same. The compassionate view taken by this Court has not found favour with Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2007, filed against the aforementioned view by the respondent Corporation. The aforementioned Civil Appeal has been decided by 3 C.W.P. No. 1718 of 2007 Hon’ble the Supreme Court alongwith the case of M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others v. M/s Hari Om Enterprises and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4080 of 2008). Hon’ble the Supreme Court expressed the view that it was difficult to uphold the order of the Division Bench. However, it also noticed a general offer made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain reallotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High Court. The same offer made by order dated 26.9.2006 (P-12) has not been availed by the petitioner Company despite the fact that time was sought to seek instructions. Therefore, we find no merit in the present petition. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 27, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4