C.W.P NO. 2277 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 2277 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 24.03.2009 Kundan Thakural ...Petitioner versus HUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an unemployed young person who is stated to have completed his diploma in Industrial Electronics. He applied for allotment of an industrial plot in response to the advertisement issued by HUDA (Annexure P-2). It was stipulated in the advertisement brochure (Annexure P-2) that : “. Preference shall be given to Ex-servicemen, Women entrepreneurs, Unemployed Engineering Graduates/Polytechnic/ITI trained candidates”. C.W.P NO. 2277 OF 2008 -2- The petitioner's case is that there were total 42 plots of the size of 800 square metres in Industrial Sector-58, Faridabad, out of which only 5 plots were allotted pursuant to the above stated advertisement. According to him, 37 plots are lying unallotted. A statement was made on behalf of the petitioner on January 23, 2009 that instead of challenging the allotments already made, he wishes to restrict his prayer for allotment of a plot. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, opposing the petitioner's prayer on various grounds. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. The record reveals that the petitioner's application was not considered on merits, as he allegedly failed to submit the Project Report. The Screening Committee also observed that the petitioner did not have any firm plan in mind and he is unable to run the project. On this count, the petitioner's claim was rejected. If the petitioner's plea that 37 plots are still lying unallotted is correct, there can indeed be no reason for not allotting the same as the object sought to be achieved, namely, the industrial growth of the State can only be achieved if the available plots are again put to an advertisement and applications from the prospective entrepreneurs are invited. In such a situation, the petitioner would also be able to resubmit his C.W.P NO. 2277 OF 2008 -3- claim along with copy of the Project Report, though, according to his learned counsel such report was submitted with the previous application also. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the feasibility and desirability of inviting applications for allotment of the unallotted 37 plots within a period of six months and the petitioner shall be at liberty to respond to such an advertisement along with the requisite documents, including the Project Report and thereupon his claim shall be reconsidered, over-looking the rejection of his claim in the previous selection process. Alternatively, the respondents shall reconsider the petitioner's previous application form and dispose of his claim by passing a reasoned order within the stipulated period. Disposed of. MARCH 24, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE