IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: December 9, 2008 Smt. Saroj Sharma …Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot an alternative plot under discretionary quota of Chief Minister at Gurgaon. It is claimed that plot has already been allotted to her in the draw of lots held on 24.4.2003. A further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 9.6.2006, issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 Panchkula-respondent No. 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot. 2. It is appropriate to mention that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 2 PLR 7, has struck down the discretionary quota allotment of plots made to few favourites. The matter travelled to Hon’ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana, (2001) 9 SCC 550, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal’s case (supra) has been held to be prospective as the earlier decision of this Court in the case of S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, (1988) 1 PLR 430, was holding the field. It was held that the parties have regulated their rights in accordance with law as pronounced by the Division Bench in S.R. Dass’s case (supra). It is further appropriate to mention that in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra) their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has fixed the cut off date of 23.4.1996 for saving the allotments of discretionary quota plot made earlier to the said date. In other words, all allotments which have been made on or before 23.4.1996 were to be saved but subsequent allotment letters were to be governed by the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal’s case (supra) because on 23.4.1996 a comprehensive interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondent State of Haryana from making allotment of plots under discretionary quota. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on 29.12.1995 the petitioner was intimated by the Chief Administrator, HUDA that the Government was considering to allot her a residential plot measuring 10 marla in Sector 46, Urban 2 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 Estate, Gurgaon, out of discretionary quota, subject to certain conditions. One of the condition mentioned in the communication of the Chief Administrator was that the petitioner should not have owned any plot or house in Urban Estate Gurgaon in her name or in the name of her spouse or any of family member dependent upon her and an affidavit to that effect was required to be sworn forthwith. Accordingly, the petitioner sent an affidavit dated 9.1.1996 (P-2 Colly) affirming that she fulfilled all the conditions. On 25.1.1996 (P-3), the Chief Administrator sent her a communication stating that a residential plot out of discretionary quota of the Government would be allotted to her and a number of conditions were specified. After mentioning the tentative price of the plot and the schedule of payment in respect thereof, condition No. 6 specifically stipulated that formal letter of allotment intimating plot number was to be issued by the Estate Officer concerned on receipt of 25% amount and other required documents. The allotment was to be made subject to condition that it should not be transferred before expiry of three years. In the endorsement a direction was issued by the Chief Administrator to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, to allot her Plot No. 3176, measuring 10 marlas, in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, after he had received the requisite amount and required documents under intimation to him. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 79,200/- on 9.2.1996 (P-4) by a bank draft dated 6.2.1996. However, before the allotment letter could be issued an inter-departmental correspondence ensued. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, addressed a letter to the Chief Administrator stating that Plot No. 3176, measuring 10 marlas, in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, 3 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 which was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner stood already allotted to another person, namely, Shri Manmohan Singh, on 31.1.1996 and, therefore, he solicited necessary guidance in that regard. Subsequently, on 10.6.1997, the petitioner was issued a letter stating that plot allotted to her out of Chief Minister’s discretionary quota stood cancelled because of the pronouncement of judgment in Anil Sabharwal’s case (supra) by the Full Bench of this Court and the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded vide letter dated 17.7.1997 (P-6 & P-7). However, after the judgment in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra), some correspondence between the Estate Officer, Gurgaon and the Chief Administrator, HUDA took place which indicates that the name of the petitioner for allotment of plot was being considered. 4. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that no allotment letter bringing into existence a vested right to the petitioner has ever been issued to him. The plot which was earmarked for the petitioner could not be allotted to her and no allotment letter could be issued, which in fact, stood allotted to one Shri Manmohan Singh i.e. Plot No. 3176, Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Therefore, the respondents have submitted that in the absence of issuance of an allotment letter the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harsh Dhingra (supra), fixing the cut-off date of 23.4.1996. 5. Mr. Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a concluded contract has come into existence when the respondents issued a letter dated 25.1.1996, subject to deposit of the amount and filing of affidavit. The petitioner has 4 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 deposited the amount on 9.2.1996 well before the cut-off date as determined by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra) and the language of the letter suggests that it was an allotment letter with certain conditions which were required to be fulfilled. According to the learned counsel, Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, clearly brings out that a concluded contract between the parties had come into existence on the acceptance of offer made by the respondents as the petitioner deposited the whole amount and fulfilled all the eligibility conditions. The only obligation cast on the respondents was to issue her allotment letter after fulfillment of the eligibility conditions by her. Learned counsel has maintained that issuance of allotment letter was merely a formality as per clause 6 of the letter dated 25.1.1996 (P-3). 6. Mr. Rawal, learned counsel has further argued that for all intents and purposes letter dated 25.1.1996 must be regarded as an allotment letter and must be held binding on the respondents which has been issued much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 23.4.1996. 7. Mr. Ajay Nara, learned counsel for the respondents, however, has argued that in the absence of any allotment letter, the inter-departmental correspondence would not lead to an inference that allotment letter has been issued. According to the learned counsel in the absence of allotment letter it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has acquired any right before 23.4.1996. He has further submitted that refund was given to the petitioner as early as 1997. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we are of the considered view that the instant petition lacks merit. The question 5 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 which arises for determination is whether the petitioner has acquired any such right before the cut-off date of 23.4.1996 in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra). The process of allotment in the instant case commenced on 29.12.1995 when Chief Administrator, HUDA intimated the inclination of the Government to allot her a 10 marla discretionary quota plot subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. On 9.1.1996 (P-2 Colly) the Chief Administrator sent her a letter stating that a residential discretionary quota plot would be allotted to her. The aforesaid letter has significant bearing on the question raised and relevant part of which reads thus: “ In continuation to this office memo No. Auth.- 95/20777 dated 29.12.95 on the subject cited above. 2. The tentative rate of the plot is Rs. 1440/- per sq. mtr./yard. The 25% payment of the total tentative cost of the plot is payable initially and the balance 75% cost of the plot will be payable in Six Equal Instalments alongwith interest @ 15% per annum on the remaining amount. 3. If you accept the above offer of allotment please send an amount of Rs. 79200/- in the shape of Bank Draft in favour of the Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon payable in any scheduled bank at Gurgaon alongwith your three specimen signatures duly attested by a Gazeted Officer, within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this letter to the Estate Officer, Gurgaon 6 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 under intimation the undersigned failing which the offer of allotment will be stands withdrawn. 4. It may be noted that an additional price of 10% of the cost of the plot is chargeable for preferential plot. Similarly 20% additional price is chargeable for special preferential plot. 5. The enhancement if any, already awarded or to be awarded in future by the court shall also be charged extra. 6. The formal letter of allotment intimating the plot number will be issued by the Estate Officer concerned on receipt of the 25% amount and required documents. 7 to 10 xxx xxx xxx xxx Endst: No. Auth-95/ Dated: A copy alongwith the required affidavit in original is forwarded to the Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon for information and necessary action. 2. He is requested to allot plot no. 3176 measuring 10 Marla in Sector 46 Urban Estate Gurgaon on receipt of the amount and required documents under intimation to this office. He should sent a report about allotment immediately. 3. & 4. xxx xxx xxx xxx” (emphasis added) 9. It is patent that 25% of the total tentative cost of the plot was payable initially and balance 75% cost of the plot was payable in six equal instalments alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The 7 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 formal letter intimating the plot number was to be issued by the Estate Officer on receipt of 25% amount. 10. It is further evident from endorsement that the Estate Officer was asked to allot Plot No. 3176, Sector 46, Gurgaon, to the petitioner. He was required to send a report accordingly. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 79,200/- by bank draft on 6.2.1996 (P-4). The Estate Officer sent a report to the Chief Administrator stating that Plot No. 3176, Sector 46, Gurgaon, stood allotted to Shri Man Mohan Singh on 31.1.1996. Accordingly, he sought guidance in that regard. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to seek refund of the amount paid and amount was actually refunded on 2.7.1997 because the Full Bench judgment in Anil Sabharwal’s case (supra) has been announced. The petitioner could not acquire any right because no regular allotment letter was issued to her in pursuance to clause 6 of the proposal to allot her a plot vide letter dated 25.1.2006. It is true that the petitioner had completed her part as per invitation to offer by depositing the amount on 6.2.1996 and by sending other documents but it could not mature into a binding contract because acceptance of the same could not result into issuance of a letter of allotment. In that regard reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is wholly misconceived. 11. We are further of the view that business of Government agency must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law. A letter of allotment alone could have vested a right in the petitioner and it is not for the Courts to infer the same from inter- departmental correspondence. Clause 6 of the letter dated 25.1.1996 8 C.W.P. No. 10190 of 2006 clearly stipulated for issuance of a formal letter of allotment which has never been issued. Therefore, no right has been conferred on her before the cut-off date i.e. 23.4.1996. 12. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 09, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 9