CWP No.9731 of 2009 & 1 CWP No.14328 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 09.02.2012 Civil Writ Petition No.9731 of 2009 (O&M) Tilak Raj Banga ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Civil Writ Petition No.14328 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Shakumbhri Exports ....Petitioner Vs. HUDA and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 3. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions, as the claim of the writ petitioners in both the cases is identical. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No.9731 of 2009 & 2 CWP No.14328 of 2009 CWP No.9731 of 2009. Challenge in the said writ petition is to the order dated 11.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and order dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, exercising the powers of State Government, whereby the allotment of a plot measuring 300 sq. meters. in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner is running a dyeing unit in the non conforming area of the Panipat town. A survey of the existing dyeing units was carried out and 494 units were identified for the purpose of shifting to new industrial Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat carved out to relocate such dyeing units. The petitioner is one of such dyeing units, found in the survey list. The petitioner was allotted Plot No.541 vide allotment letter dated 02.12.2003 on depositing of 5% of the earnest money. In terms of letter of allotment (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs.16,560/- within 30 days, so as to contribute 15% of the total tentative price, whereas the remaining 85% amount could be paid either within 60 days without interest or in half yearly installments payable over a period of 10 years along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum. The petitioner did not deposit such amount, conveyed to him, which led to communication dated 11.03.2005 (Annexure P-2), whereby the allotment of plot was cancelled and the earnest money of Rs.14,850/- was forfeited. Appeal against the said order remained unsuccessful. Revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 06.03.2009. Before the revisional CWP No.9731 of 2009 & 3 CWP No.14328 of 2009 authority, the stand taken by the petitioner was that he was suffering from Asthma and was lying on bed for the last two years. The said stand was found to be devoid of any merit. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the State Government after a period of three years of the order passed in Appeal. In the meantime i.e. after the decision of the Administrator, HUDA and before the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the State Government, the Haryana Urban Development Authority had issued public notice inviting applications for allotment of plots to enable the dyeing units, who have not applied earlier, to shift from non conforming areas of Panipat town to Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat. It was advertised that some of the entrepreneurs, who have been identified for allotment of plots in the zone, have not come forward seeking allotment of plots. These plots cannot be left as such for an indefinite period. Therefore, a last chance was given to these entrepreneurs. Though, the petitioner was issued an allotment letter, but he had another opportunity to apply for allotment of plot in pursuance of the advertisement, which the petitioner had not availed. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in CWP No. 971 of 2008 titled as 'M/s Acfoli INC Vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others' (decided on 11.12.2008), the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to re-allot plots at the current rate, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be allotted a plot at the current rate in terms of the directions, so issued. The HUDA has framed a policy for rehabilitation of dyeing units in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat. The name of the petitioner- CWP No.9731 of 2009 & 4 CWP No.14328 of 2009 unit finds mentioned in the survey list. The petitioner has shown its willingness for allotment of a plot and deposited 5% of the tentative price. In spite of the fact that the regular letter of allotment was issued, the petitioner failed to accept the offer of allotment of plot by depositing the sum of Rs.16,560/-. The petitioner has failed to avail the second opportunity, which arose with the publication of an advertisement in the year 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, (2009) 4 SCC 369 case has held that unless the offer of allotment is accepted in terms of letter of allotment, no further opportunity of hearing is required to provided. The said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner has failed to deposit the balance 10% within time granted. It was on deposit of such amount alone, a binding contract comes into existence. The letter of allotment is an offer, which has to be accepted in terms of the offer made. In Chaman Lal Singhal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the non compliance of the terms of the letter of allotment does not give rise to binding contract. It was observed: “17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted before us that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case as there was in fact no agreement/contract between the parties. He also submitted that as the appellant failed to accept the offer of the respondent Authority by making payment of the amount as directed in the letter of allotment, there was no binding contract between the parties and, therefore, Section 17 of the Act has no application at all. It was further submitted that the forfeiture of the amount could have been and rightly done by the respondent Authority by invoking the mandate of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment.” The petitioner was allotted plot in the year 2003, but has failed to accept the offer made by the HUDA soon thereafter. We do CWP No.9731 of 2009 & 5 CWP No.14328 of 2009 not find that the directions of this Court to allot plot at the current market rate can be extended to the petitioner, as the petitioner cannot seek any such direction having failed to accept the offer made in the year 2003. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 09.02.2012 (A.N. JINDAL) ajp/vimal JUDGE