CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3961 of 1985. Date of Decision: 8th May, 2009. Jai Parkash Gupta ....Petitioner through Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate Versus HUDA & Ors. .Respondents through Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 1.5.1985 and 21.5.1985 [Annexures P-8 and P-9] whereby the allotment of Industrial Plot No. 39, Sector 25, Faridabad has been cancelled and the second Scheme submitted by the petitioner for establishing the industrial unit has also been filed by the Director of Industries, Haryana. [2]. A brief reference to the facts may be made. [3]. The petitioner was allotted Industrial Plot No. 39 [measuring half acre], Sector 25, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 21.12.1979. The terms and conditions of the allotment included clauses No. 13, 14 and 25 which being relevant, are reproduced below:- “13. On payment of 100 per cent of the tentative price of CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-2-:: the plot/building, you shall execute the Deed of Conveyance in the prescribed form and in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer. The charges of registration and stamp duty will be paid by you. 14. The plot/building shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been allotted in accordance with the plans approved by the competent authority. No obnoxious trade shall be carried out in or on any land/building. 25. You may obtain possession of the plot on payment of 25% price of the plot on any working Monday and on receipt of recommendation of the Director Industries Haryana which may be obtained within 30 days”. [Emphasis applied]. [4]. The petitioner submitted a Scheme/Project on 11.1.1980 in terms of Clause 25 above, for installation of Dal and Oil Mill. The record reveals that the petitioner's project was forwarded to the Director of Industries, Haryana by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad vide Memo No. 27.2.1980 but the same did not find favour with the Director of Industries, who vide his Memo dated 31.7.1980 [Annexure R-1] rejected the same after observing that “the scheme of the party Shri Jai Parkash Gupta has been examined and has not been found feasible technically. As such his case for the allotment of the industrial plot applied for can not be recommended for allotment and stands rejected”. [5]. The petitioner thereafter made a representation on 25.9.1981 to change the Scheme and permit him to install Board and Box Unit. The Scheme/Project submitted by the petitioner was, however, turned down by the Director of Industries vide his memo CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-3-:: dated 8.12.1982 [Annexure P-3]. [6]. After remaining silent over the issue for a period of more than two years, the petitioner approached the Directorate of Industries, who then shot a letter dated 29.1.1985 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad asking to forward a copy of the petitioner's Project report “for setting up of the Oil Mill was forwarded by you vide your Memo No. 1272 dated 11.1.1980”. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad then sent a Memo dated 15.3.1985 [Annexure P-6] to the Director of Industries asking the latter to send recommendations on the petitioner's Scheme as the plot was still lying in the petitioner's name. The Director, Industries thereafter called the petitioner for hearing on 22/29.4.1985. Meanwhile the impugned order dated 1.5.1985 [Annexure P-8] was passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, cancelling the petitioner's allotment and refunding the amount of Rs.28,680.80 deposited by him. Based upon that, the Director, Industries also closed the process of examination of the petitioner's Scheme as is apparent from the impugned Memo dated 21.5.1985 [Annexure P-9]. [7]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [8]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the Director of Industries as well as the HUDA have filed their respective replies/affidavits. The HUDA authorities have come up with the plea that the allotment was conditional and subject to approval of the petitioner's Project by the Director of Industries and since no such Scheme/Project was approved for over six years, they have cancelled the allotment of the plot as per terms and conditions. The CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-4-:: Director of Industries on the other hand has questioned the very conditional allotment in favour of the petitioner. It would be apposite to re-produce the following stand taken by the Director of Industries in its written statement:- “........ It is, however, submitted that the answering respondent inquired from the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority according to the regulations of Haryana Urban Development Authority laid down for the allotment of industrial plots, prior approval of the project and requirement of land is required to be got approved from this office. However, Shri Jai Parkash Gupta resident of 88, Sector 16-A, Faridabad has been allotted Plot No. 39, Sector 25 at Faridabad without getting his project approved from this office. It is not understood as to under what circumstances , the regulations of Haryana Urban Development Authority have been violated......”.[Emphasis applied]. [9]. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. [10]. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that according to the Director of Industries, the petitioner was firstly required to get his industrial-project approved from the Directorate of Industries and then could seek allotment of a plot from the HUDA. In the case in hand, a reverse procedure has been followed inasmuch as the plot was allotted in favour of the petitioner even before the industrial- project was not approved by the Director of Industries. It was for this reason that clause 25 of the Allotment Letter expressly stipulated that the petitioner was required to get the project approved before the possession of the plot could be delivered to him. CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-5-:: [11]. It further appears that the plot was allotted to the petitioner without considering the competing claims and/or inviting applications by way of advertisement and/or any other transparent manner. Be that as it may, the record shows that the petitioner submitted his project report on 11.1.1980 to the Estate Officer, HUDA which was forwarded to the Director of Industries on 21.2.1980. The same was, however, turned down by the Director of Industries vide Memo dated 31.7.1980 [Annexure R-1]. Neither the said decision of the Director was assailed by the petitioner nor he submitted a fresh Scheme till 21.9.1981 when he applied for the change of the Scheme and permit him to establish a Board and Box Unit. The petitioner's request was also turned down by the Competent Authority on 8.12.1992 [Annexure P-3]. Unfortunately, even that order was not questioned by the petitioner. It was after a period of more than two years that the petitioner again appears to have approached the Director of Industries and got issued the letter dated 29.1.1985 [Annexure P-4] which is totally contrary to the facts on record. The said letter indicates as if the original project submitted by the petitioner on 11.1.1980 was still pending consideration, whereas the fact of the matter is that the said project had already been rejected by the Competent Authority on 31.7.1980 [ Annexure R-1 ]. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner was allotted the plot on conditional basis and he having failed to get the Scheme approved from the Director of Industries as per clause 25 of the allotment letter dated 21.12.1979 [Annexure P-1], no fault can be found with the cancellation of the said conditional allotment strictly as CWP NO. 3961 OF 1985. ::-6-:: per clause 14 read with clause 25 thereof. It may be mentioned here that the subject plot could otherwise not be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was allotted. Since the allotment was for a project to be approved by the Director or Industries and no such approval was accorded and was rather rejected twice, the cancellation of the allotment is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. [12]. Dismissed. May 08, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE