Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 Date of Order: 13th October, 2011 Smt. Manjit Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for respondent no.3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of allotment of plot No.74, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, to respondent no.3 and for issuance of a direction to the official respondents to deliver possession of this plot to the petitioners in view of the prior allotment to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners applied to the Estate Officer, HUDA, on 10.03.1981, for allotment of a 1000 square meters plot, for setting up A to Z Printing Works. The petitioners deposited Rs.5,500/- towards Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -2- 10% of the earnest money and submitted a detailed proposal with respect to machinery, mode of finance etc.. The Estate Officer, HUDA, called for further information vide letter dated 06.12.1981. The petitioners furnished further information vide letter dated 17.12.1981. The petitioners were called for an interview on 05.05.1982 and as their proposal found favour with the committee, the plot in dispute, was allotted at a tentative price of Rs.55/- per square meter. The petitioners deposited Rs.8,250/-, towards 25% of the cost of the plot, vide letter dated 05.01.1983. The petitioners were asked to submit a building plan, to get the unit registered with the Industries Department and submit an application regarding loan from any financial institution/bank and the list of machinery to be installed. The petitioners furnished the requisite information and informed the Estate Officer that drawings have been submitted and that the petitioners do not require a loan as they shall meet the expenses out of their own resources etc. The building plan was sanctioned on 27.02.1984 by the Estate Officer, HUDA. Instead of giving possession to enable the petitioners to shift his unit, the petitioners received a notice dated 09.05.1984 calling upon them to show cause why the letter of intent should not be withdrawn. The petitioners filed a reply on 19.05.1984, pleading that as they have complied with all relevant conditions there is no question of cancelling the allotment. The petitioners visited the office of respondent no.2 but no information or order was Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -3- forthcoming from the respondents. It is further alleged that officials, in the department, connived with respondent no.3, manipulated office notings and allotted the plot to respondent no.3, without passing an order cancelling the allotment made to the petitioners. After repeated requests and representations, the petitioners were issued a letter dated 04.01.1996, after 12 years informing them that as the offer of allotment stood withdrawn, the plot has been allotted to respondent no.3. On receipt of this letter, the petitioners visited the respondents who refused to accede to their request for allotment of the plot and persisted with their stand that the plot has been cancelled. It is further submitted that as the respondents have admitted that the order of cancellation is not available on record, their stand that the letter of intent was withdrawn, cancelled or that an order of cancellation was issued is false. The allotment was made, on the recommendation of the Industries Department and the petitioners have deposited 25% of the cost of the plot. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no authority to cancel the allotment. The allotment made in favour of respondent no.3, without cancelling the allotment to the petitioners is illegal and void and should be set aside. It is further submitted that as the petitioners fulfill the criteria for allotment and satisfy the conditions imposed by official respondents, the alleged cancellation of the plot and its allotment to respondent no.3 is malafide, illegal and void. It is further submitted that the Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -4- grounds for cancellation is a mere eyewash as the petitioners had already complied with requirements set out in the letter issued by the respondents. Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners were issued a provisional allotment, called a letter of intent. The petitioners were required to comply with five conditions within 180 days, failing which the letter of intent would be withdrawn. The letter, Annexure P-5, addressed by the petitioners, in alleged compliance with these conditions, is incomplete. The answering respondents addressed a letter dated 24.01.1984 requesting the petitioners to complete the conditions within 30 days and to make payment of Rs.6830/- being the enhanced price. The petitioners did not comply with this letter. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioners but as no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming, the provisional allotment/letter of intent was cancelled/withdrawn. It is further submitted that the malafides of petitioners claim are apparent from the fact that though they filed their reply on 19.05.1984, they remained silent for 12 years and only woke up when the plot was allotted to respondent no.3. It is, however, admitted that though the letter of intent was withdrawn by Memo no.814, dated 14.01.1985 but the order, is not traceable. It is argued that the order may have been removed from the record, by the petitioners in connivance with officials of the HUDA, for which action is being taken separately. Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -5- Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the letter of intent was validly cancelled and the plot was allotted to respondent no.3, after an interview. Respondent no.3 has raised construction upto plinth level, but in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the building is lying incomplete for the last more than one decade. It is further submitted that the plot was allotted to respondent no.3 in a legal and valid manner after following prescribed procedure and there is no question of any malafide whether on the part of respondent nos.1 and 2 or respondent no.3. It is further submitted that the record may be perused to examine the legality of the allotment of plot to respondent no.3. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper book, the record containing office notings, the letter of intent, and letters addressed by the petitioners and respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the despatch register. The plot in dispute was allotted to the petitioners on 27.12.1982 with the following conditions:- “(i) Please get the drawing of your unit prepared from the Architect registered with HUDA and submit the same to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. Copy of the zoning plan/ regulations may be obtained from C.T.P., HUDA. (ii) Simultaneously, please get the loan Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -6- required to meet the cost of land, building and machinery sanctioned from the Haryana Financial institution. (iii) Please get the unit registered with the General Manager, of the District Industries Centre, concerned in the case of small scale unit or in the case of the large or medium scale unit, you should get Director General Technical Development, Govt. of India registration or letter of intent. (in case of NRI's/POIO the SSI Registration can be done at IAG office, Directorate of Industries 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. (iv) You may apply to Haryana State Electricity Board, for release of an electric connection to the proposed unit. (v) You may supply to this office a list of plant and machinery to be installed in the unit for scrutiny. Orders for supply of at least 50% of the machinery should be placed. (vi) It is also made clear that this letter will not give you any legal right for allotment unless the final allotment letter is issued. Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -7- The petitioners sent a letter dated 27.06.1983, which reads as follows:- “With reference to the formalities mentioned in your Memo No.E.O.(P)Indl. Area II/33613 dated 27.12.82, we are to state as under:- (i) The drawings of our unit prepared by M/s Charanjit and Associates, Architects have since been submitted to your office. The Zoning Plan stated to be enclosed with your Memo under reference is still said to be under finalisation. In fact, that delayed the earlier submission of our Plan. (ii) As regards loan for land and construction of building, we would meet the expenses from our own resources and loan from our relatives and friends, which would be course be interest free. We would shift the existing unit with Plant and machinery worth Rs.1,96,749/- to Panchkula. That would very well serve our purpose to start with. Of course, we would raise loan from H.F.C. for the purchase of Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -8- Premier Offset, already ordered for, at the appropriate time. We would not like to get the loan sanctioned in absence of our actual requirement to save unnecessary interest. We are already availing CC limit of Rs.25,000/- for working capital from C.B.I. Sector 15, Chd. We would get it enhanced as and when needed. iii) We have since applied to the Inspector of Indusries, Panchkula for registration of our unit. iv) The Haryana State Electricity Board has not entertained our application for electric connection for want of: a)Possession certificate b) Three copies of sanctioned plan. v) List of Plant and Machinery to be installed stand, annexed with our scheme. Thanking you and assuring you of our extreme co-operation at all times.” A notice dated 09.05.1984 was issued to the petitioners warning them that if they do not comply with these conditions, Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -9- they should show cause, within 15 days, why the letter of intent should not be withdrawn. A relevant extract from this notice reads as follows:- “Whereas a letter of intent offering you an industrial plot measuring 1000 sq. meters (Approx.) in Industrial area Phase-II, Panchkula was issued to you vide this office memo no.33613 dated 27.12.82 AND whereas according to the terms and conditions of the letter of intent, you were requested to complete formalities mentioned in clause 2(i to vi), within 120/180 days from the issue of the said letter. AND WHEREAS, you have failed to complete these formalities And, therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause within 15 days from the issue of this notice, as to why the letter of intent, issued to you should not be withdrawn. You are also requested to intimate the sources of finances. Also intimate the circumstances leading to shifting of your unit at Panchkula.” The petitioners replied to the show cause notice on 19.05.1984. The contents of their reply reads as follows:- 1. Building Plan of plot No.74-P, Phase-II Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -10- submitted by us has graciously been sanctioned by your goodself vide your Memo No.E.O.(P)-80-S-708 dt. 27.2.84. 2. We have long back applied for registration of our unit at Panchkula with the District Industries Officer, Ambala. 3. In our previous letter, we had submitted that the S.D.O. Electricity did not accept our application for power supply for want of allotment letter and copy of sanctioned plan. Since the plan has been sanctioned, we now request you to very kindly issue us allotment letter to enable us to go ahead with the electric connection. 4. In regards to sources of finances, we are to invite your kind attention to the immovable property deposed in our scheme. Constructed Booth No.77 in Sector 16-D, Chandigarh belonging to our partner Sh. R.K.Singh is surplus to our needs. We shall dispose it off as soon as your goodself issues the allotment letter. This will fetch an amount needed for the constructions of the said plot. As regards machinery, we had Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -11- previously raised term loan of Rs.75,000/- from the Central Bank of India, Sector 15, Chandigarh for the purchase of Mercedes Super. This loan now stands fully paid back and the press with an assessment of Rs.2 lacs is free from all encumbrances. We are further raising loan from the same source for the purchase of offset machine. As regards Carton Box making machinery, it is not so costly and we will manage it without loan. What we need at Panchkula is the working capital. For tht, we could get C.C. limit from our Bankers at Panchkula and raise the Hundi loan against our finished goods. Sir, it is easy to get loan but it is very uneasy to pay it back. Term loan repayable in 3 years accrues about one third of the capital as INTEREST. Loan against machinery is somehow repaid, but loan against building, we are afraid, will break our back bone. As regards shifting of our Unit to Panchkula we have already mentioned in Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -12- our scheme that the present unit is housed in the ground floor of the reisdential house belonging to our partner Smt. Manjit Kaur. The space available is quite inadequate to run the machinery with us fully what to speak of further expansion. During the course of interview before the Screening Committee we had shown the honourable members our research work on printing inks, coating of paper, adhesives and the desertations written by us. All this is to be implemented at Panchkula so as to drastically bring down the cost of packing material to faithfully serve the Industries at Panchkula and elsewhere. We trust, Sir, you will kindly immediately issue us allotment letter to enable us to start construction.” After this reply, the petitioners did not approach the respondents for information with respect to the show cause notice or for allotment/possession for a period of 12 years. The plot in dispute was allotted to respondent no.3 in 1996. The petitioners woke up from their slumber and addressed a letter dated 04.01.1996 to the Estate Officer seeking information Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -13- regarding the plot. The Estate Officer replied vide letter dated 15.01.1996 that the offer of allotment has been withdrawn and the plot has been allotted to respondent no.3. A perusal of the original file, relating to the plot in dispute, reveals that after due consideration of the reply, filed by the petitioners, a note was prepared recommending withdrawal of the letter of intent. The office note was accepted and it was ordered that the letter of intent should be withdrawn. The record, however, does not contain a copy of the formal order communicating withdrawal of the letter of intent, to the petitioners. Counsel for the HUDA, however, specifically urges that an order, withdrawing the letter of intent was prepared, signed and despatched to the petitioners but has been removed from the original file, by its employees, in connivance with the petitioners. A perusal of the original record, reveals that the officer concerned did pass an order accepting the office note, and recommending cancellation of letter of intent but it appears that a copy of this order is not available on record. However, as counsel for HUDA vehemently contended that the order was despatched to the petitioners, he was directed to produce the despatch register. The original despatch register was produced before this court and perused by counsel for the parties as well as by the Court. A perusal of the despatch register reveals that the order Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -14- of cancellation was despatched to the petitioners on 14.01.1984. It is, therefore, established that an order cancelling the allotment was indeed prepared, signed and despatched to the petitioners on 14.01.1984. The petitioners remained silent for 12 years, after filing their reply to the show cause notice. The unexplained delay prima-facie suggests that all is not above board. It appears that after the petitioners were ensured that the order of withdrawal has been removed from the record, they addressed a letter to the HUDA, enquiring about the fate of their plot and the allotment of the plot to respondent no.3. The bonafides of the petitioners are suspect and, therefore, do not entitle them to any relief. The unexplained delay of 12 years, before addressing a letter enquiring about the fate of the plot and then filing the writ petition, without any credible explanation for this delay fortifies this conclusion. Whether the original order has been removed from the file by employees of HUDA to help the petitioners, is a matter for the authorities to investigate. The mere fact that the order is not available on record does not entitle the petitioner to any relief. As regards the allegation that the plot was arbitrarily allotted to respondent no.3, suffice is to state that the documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/7, appended with the additional affidavit, filed by respondent no.3 clearly establish that the allotment was made after due consideration by a Civil Writ Petition No.2329 of 1996 -15- committee constituted for allotment of plots. The petitioners' allegations of malafide are unfounded, unsubstantiated and, therefore, merit rejection. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no relief can be granted to the petitioners, the present petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs. October 13th, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE