IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1477 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.04.2011 Balmukand Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. And others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 06.11.2007, the petitioner had applied for allotment of plot No. 6 in Industrial Estate, Jind on the basis of on going policy known as Industrial Policy, 2005. On 14.11.2007, the respondents returned the pay order saying that there was no vacant plot. On learning that industrial plot No. 6 is still lying vacant and available for allotment, the petitioner submitted another application on 09.06.2008 alongwith demand draft of ` 60,000/-. The respondents had raised further demand on 01.04.2008 with revised rate of ` 600/- per sq. meter. The petitioner deposited additional sum of ` 56,160/-. He was called for interview when he learnt that there was two more applicants for the same plot i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3. The Civil Writ Petition No. 1477 of 2009 -2- petitioner alleges that they had political influence and ignoring his merit, the plot has been allotted to respondent No. 2. It is stated that the said respondent had nil experience. Even respondent No. 3 has been allotted another plot bearing No. 78, which is carved out of 1½ piece of land available with the Corporation. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. In the reply filed, the respondents have raised number of preliminary objections. It is disclosed in the reply that the case of the petitioner is more of a greed rather than need. It is pointed out that the petitioner was allotted five plots No. 9 to 13 in Industrial Estate, Jind for implementation and expansion of surgical cotton project. Out of these five plots, he has already sold four plots even before applying for allotment of plot No. 6, Industrial Estate, Jind. Plot Nos. 11 and 13 were sold on 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2007 respectively. Plot Nos. 9 and 10 were sold on 18.01.2008. So far as plot No. 12 is concerned, the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 25.12.2008. This agreement was to be executed on or before 30.01.2009 and has been duly executed. It is, accordingly, stated that the petitioner is only interested in making some money and is not entrepreneur who needs allotment of plot. Besides, some other preliminary objections have also been raised. It is stated that the Allotment Committee comprised of experts and persons of high eminence in the field of industry, which had found him ineligible as he could not justify the requirement of additional land. It is also stated that the petitioner has not made only allegation of bias, mala fides and favouritism against the Allotment Civil Writ Petition No. 1477 of 2009 -3- Committee but also simply pleaded that the plots had been allotted on the basis of political influence. The plea by the petitioner to justify the selling of the plot is also disputed. As per the petitioner, he had sold the plots because of fire due to overhead electric wire. It is stated that the high tension electric wire is running overhead plot No. 6, for the allotment of which the petitioner has made the application in question. I have heard counsel for the parties, the plea on the lines as contained in the writ petition has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner had earlier been allotted the plot not one but five in number, which he had sold, in my view, there is no justification on his part to seek allotment of another plot. Even otherwise, I am not able to find any infirmity in the order made by the Allotment Committee and, thus, am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. April 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE