Case: Jasbir Singh Chhabra  Vs. State Of Punjab

3. The Corporation is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was created for developing infrastructure necessary for industrialization of the identified areas of the State. Between 1994 and 1996, the State Government acquired land in PhasesB, Mohali and handed over the same to the Corporation. After carrying out necessary development, the Corporation allotted the plots to industrial entrepreneurs. As there was no provision in the extant industrial policy for earmarking some land in the focal points/growth centres developed by the Corporation, which could be allotted to the industrial entrepreneurs and the workers employed in the industries, the Corporation submitted a proposal to the State Government to allow it to earmarkarea in the existing/coming up focal points/growth centres for Industrial Housing. After due deliberations, the State Government approved the proposal. This was conveyed to the Corporation vide Memo No.dated 26.12.2001, paragraph 2 whereof reads asagrees to your proposal to earmarkarea for Industrial Housing as matter of policy in the existing/coming up focal points and growth centres developed by PSIEC, depending upon circumstances of each area for facilitating speedy growth especially in industrial backward area.Although, the above mentioned decision of the State Government did not provide for change of land use from industrial to residential, the Corporation, on its own, framed a policy for disposal of residential plots in the existing andindustrial focal points/industrial estates/growth centres. The relevant portions of that policy are extractedPROCEDURE FOR INVITING APPLICATIONS:Application for allotment of plots of free hold basis be invited by PSIEC through press advertisement. In case number of eligible applicants exceed those of available plots in respect size/category, allotment will be made through draw of lots.2. ELIGIBILITY:Any Indian or NRI who have not been allotted any residential plot in any Urban Complex developed by the GOVT./GOVT. undertaking in Punjab is eligible to apply.5. PREFERENCE:Preference in allotment of plots shall be in following order in respective focal point/growth centre/industrial Estate:(a) Allottees of industrial plots whose units are under production in the respective area(b) Allottees of industrial plots whose units are under construction in the respective area(c) Workers/Employees employed in the units under production and set up in respective area.The reservation for different categories for allotment of residential plots will be followed as under:(a)Scheduled caste10%(b)Backwardmen/war widows5%(d)Non resident Indian5%If the number of eligible application are less than those of available plots under the specified reserve category(s). The unallotted plots, thereof, will be transferred for allotment under General Category.Thereafter, the Corporation advertised 138 freehold plots in focal point, Mohali and allotted the same to those who were declared successful in the draw held on 8.10.2002.6. Some of the industrial entrepreneurs to whom large plots were allotted in focal point, Mohali could not fully utilize the same and surrendered the surplus land. In Phasethe demand for industrial plots was less than what was anticipated by the Corporation. The issue relating to disposal of surplus land in PhasesB, focal point, Mohali was considered in the meeting of Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation held on 15.12.2003 and it was decided that such land may be utilized for carving out residential pockets. This was subject to approval of change of land use under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (for short, ‘theThe relevant portions of the decision taken in that meeting are reproducedplans of 3 residential pockets in Phase VIIIA and B, Indl. Focal Point, Mohali were discussed in details and following decisions were taken:1. Pocket consisting of Business centreMohali:It was explained by STP, PSIEC that originally pocket comprising of about 11.83 Acres was earmarked for proposed business centre in Phase VIII B, Mohali. However, due to inadequate demand for commercial sites, it is proposed to reduce the area of business centre to 2.33 acres. Balance about 9.50 acres is proposed to beinto residential plots of one Kanal each. Green buffers of 90 ft. width has been provided around the plots to segregate from Industrial plots. Lay out plan was discussed in details and it was proposed by the committee that open space opposite Indl. Plot77 may beinto plots so as to avoid encroachment by the allottees at a later stage. The lay out plan was approved after incorporating the proposed modification.2. 30 Acres plotsurrendered by the allotee:It was explained by the STP that two categories of plots i.e. 16 Marlas and 10 Marlas have been planned by30 acres plot. The green buffer of 100 ft. width has been provided between ICI paint factory and proposed residential plots. The lay out plan was discussed in details and it was observed by the committee that open space at both the end corners abutting 80 ft. wide road and adjacent to Indl. Plot No.79 may not be left as such for the similar reasons that the same may not be encroached upon and instead plot of 16 Marlas category may be planned in this open space. In lieu of above, a sizable open space in the centre of the pocket may be provided by suitably amending the lay out plan. The lay out plan was thus unanimously approved with above modification duly incorporated. With the provision of residential plots in above 2 pockets, total percentage of residential area inB comes to about 17% which is well within percentage approved by the Govt.3. About 43 Acres land surrendered by M/s. Ranbaxy inA, Mohali.It was explained by the STP, PSIEC that plots of 2 categories i.e. one Kanal and 16 Marlas have been planned in this pocket. Besides this, a small commercial area to cater to the needs of the residential population as well as Indl. Area onroad and a site measuring 3.75 Acres has also been planned for School. It was observed by the Committee that the service lane along 100 ft. sector road dividing Sector 75and Sector 76 may be provided and plots of one Kanal categories may be opened on the service land. Secondly, site for School may not be provided as PUDA has made ample provision of School sites in the adjoining sectors developed by PUDA. Instead plots of one Kanal size may be planned in this pocket. Lay out plan was approved after making suitable modifications as proposed above.It was pointed out by Sh. Rajinder Sharma, STP o/o Chief Town Planner, Punjab that as per Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, permission for change of land use from industrial to residential/nonindustrial use is required to be taken from the competent authority. However, STP, PSIEC explained that the proposal to earmark 20% to 30% for Housing as a matter a policy in the existing as well as coming up Indl. Focal points/Growth centres developed by PSIEC stands approved by the Govt. and the area earmarked for housing inA and B, Mohali is well within the prescribed norms. Layout plans were approved subject to approval of change of land use under the PRTPDsupplied)7. The matter was then considered in the meeting of the Allotment Committee underer referred to as, ‘the Allotmentheld on 5.2.2004 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary (the meeting was also attended by Shri Arun Goel, the then Managing Director of the Corporation) and the following recommendations weretaking up the regular agenda items, the Committee discussed the agenda notes on policy issues circulated by Industries Department vide their letter dated 27.1.2004 and made following recommendations:(i) Industrial Policy 2003 — Amendments to facilitate investment in Industrial Infrastructure—Detail given in the background note were perused and provisions of Industrial Policy 2003 with regard to development of Industrial Park and status of Multiplex Complexes were discussed at length. After detailed discussions following recommendations were made:(a) Industrial Parks/Estates/Agro Parks/IT Parks fulfilling the criteria for such parks as prescribed in Government ofscheme may be considered for allotment of land in Industrial Focal Points.(b) Multiplex Complexes constitute a distinct category and may not be equated with Industrial Park for allotment of land.(c) Price for allotment of land for Industrial parks, etc. may be fixed at level that gives a return of 20% to the developer on his investment.(d) For Multiplex Complexes price calculated as per criteria at (c) above should be treated as reserved price and allotment of land may be made through auction.(e) Existing allottees of industrial land may be permitted to change land use upto three Acres for Multiplex on payment of the difference between the prevailing allotment price for the industry and five times that of price for allotment of developed industrial plots. There may not be any concession in price for sick units. However, payment schedule may be relaxed in case of sick units.It was recommended that Industrial Policy may be got amended by the Department at appropriate level to incorporate above provisions in the Policy.(ii) Availability of Industrial land in Mohali—Position indicated in the background note was perused. It was felt that in view of limited availability of land with PSIEC, the available land should be utilized for setting up of industrial units/industrial parks which can generate more revenue and employment for the State instead of housing activity which will neither generate employment nor revenue for the State exchequer. The financial needs of PSIEC can be met by allotting the land for industrial parks/Multiplex complexes which will generate greater revenue in view of higher allotment price for such land as indicated at (i) above. It was, therefore, recommended that no allotment may be made by PSIEC for housingsupplied)The Allotment Committee then considered regular agenda items and took the followingNo. 21.1Confirmation of Minutes of 20th meeting of Allotment Committee held on 23.12.2003.Confirmed.Item No. 21.2Allotment of 46 Acres of land to M/s. Quark at Focal Point, Phase VIII, Extension, Mohali.It was decided to allot 46 Acres of land at Mohali to M/s. Quark for setting up an industrial Park, in view of approval of their project as mega project by the Empowered Committee under Industrial Policy 2003 and thereafter by the Cabinet. Contents of letter No. Spl./114/SHUD dated 4.2.2004 from Secretary, Housing Urban Development highlighting the possible implications of the restraint orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding ‘Change in Landwere also brought to the notice of the Committee. It was decided that allotment to M/s. Quark will be subject to legal advice to be obtained by the Housing Department. The allotment will also be subject to fulfillment of following conditions:(i) M/s. Quark were allotted 5 acres of land in PhaseMohali by PSIEC and they are defaulter in making payment of cost enhancement amounting to Rs.1.18 crore and applicable interest. The company will make payment of this amount before fresh allotment is made.(ii) Punjab Infotec Corporation will get the formal approval for change in land use for the area proposed to be allotted to the company from competent authority.(iii) Zoning and buildingof PSIEC as applicable in that area will apply.(iv) No polluting industry will be set up in the industrial zone as the park will also comprise of residential and commercial area.Item No. 21.3Allotment ofAcres of land at Mohali to M/s. A.B. Motions (Pvt.) Ltd.Item No. 21.4Payment terms in respect of allotment to M/s. A.B. Motions (Pvt.) Ltd.It was decided to defer these items till amendment in Industrial Policy as recommended by the Committee at (i) above.The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Allotment Committee in respect of the land at Mohali and decided not to allow change of land use from industrial to residential. This is evident from the contents of Memo dated 5.8.2004, which reads asManaging Director,Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited,Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17,Chandigarh.Memo No.US/CO(PSIEC)/2500Dated Chandigarh, the 5th August, 2004Subject: Change of Land Use from Industrial to Housing.The matter regarding conversion of industrial land into residential use in Mohali, by Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation has been considered by the Government. It has been decided that in the overall interest of the State, it would not be desirable to change the land use from industrial to residential. The Corporation should, therefore, immediately withdraw the scheme for allotment of residential plots and refund the application money of the applicants so that there are no legal complications.About two months prior to consideration of the issue relating to disposal of surplus land by Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation, an advertisement was issued, which was published in ‘Thedated 20.10.2003 inviting applications for 280 residential plots in PhasesB, focal point, Mohali under the Industrial Housing Scheme. In the application form issued by the Corporation, the following stipulation wasacceptance of application form and earnest money does not place the corporation under any obligation to allot you a plot.About 3500 persons including those who filed writ petitions before the High Court applied for allotment of residential plots in Mohali. After five months, another advertisement was issued on 23.3.2004 under the authority of the Managing Director of theAllotment Committee informing the applicants that draw of lots for allotment of residential plots in PhasesB, Mohali, focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana will be held on 31.3.2004. That advertisement carried the followingabove draw of lots for allotment of residential plots under Industrial Housing Scheme in Phases VIII A and B at Focal Point, Mohali is being held provisionally and the applicants declared successful will be placed on a provisional list for allotment of plots subject to the final decision on the aforesaid Industrial Housing Scheme at Focal Point, Mohali. It is clarified that placement of successful applicants on the provisional list for allotment of plots will not confer any legal right either to claim interest on the earnest money remaining with the Corporation or for the allotment of residential plots on the basis of their having been declared successful in the draw of lots and no claim in this behalf shall be entertainable on any account whatsoever. It is further clarified that any applicant found successful in the draw of lots and not agreeable to above conditions, may seek refund of their earnest money any time till the letter of allotment is issued bysupplied)11. All the writ petitioners were declared successful in the draw and their names were placed in the provisional list of successful applicants. However, allotment letters were issued only to those who had applied for plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana. Some of the petitioners, who had applied for the plots in focal point, Mohali filed Writ Petition No.12396/2004 with the complaint that they have been arbitrarily discriminated in the matter of allotment of plots. However, they withdrew the writ petition with liberty to challenge the stipulation contained in the advertisement that the acceptance of application form or earnest money will not place the Corporation under an obligation to allot a plot to the applicant. Thereafter, a batch of writ petitions was filed questioning the legality of the stipulation contained in the application form, note incorporated in advertisement dated 23.3.2004 and the decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004. The writ petitioners invoked the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and pleaded that on being declared successful in the draw of lots, they have acquired a right to be allotted plots in focal point, Mohali and the Corporation is bound to fulfil the promise made by issuing advertisement dated 20.10.2003. They pleaded that the State Government does not have the power to direct the Corporation to abandon the policy of allotting residential plots in the industrial focal points and the decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 is vitiated due to mala fides because the same was designed to favour some individuals who wanted to utilize the land for commercial purpose by building multiplex complexes. They further pleaded that thefailure to issue allotment letters has resulted in discrimination and violation of their fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In the written statements filed on behalf of the State Government and the Corporation, it was pleaded that the decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 was in consonance with policy of the State Government to promote industrialization of the State, which was expected to give impetus to the economy of different areas and generate employment. It was further pleaded that in its capacity as owner of the land, the State Government was entitled to take appropriate policy decision and the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim allotment of plots merely because they had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 20.10.2003 or their names were included in the provisional list of successful applicants. The Corporation relied upon Article 90 of its Memorandum of Association and pleaded that the State Government is empowered to issue directions on policy matters and its refusal to sanction change of land use in PhasesB, Mohali falls within the ambit of Article 90. According to the Corporation, advertisement dated 23.3.2004 was issued for holding draw of lots because thedecision on the proposal for change of land use from industrial to residential was getting delayed and it was felt that the earnest money deposited by those who may be ultimately unsuccessful should not be retained for a long time. The parties filed further pleadings in the form of rejoinder and supplementary affidavits reiterating their respective stand.12. After adverting to the pleadings of the parties and arguments of the learned Counsel, the Division Bench of the High Court framed the followingWhether the holding of a draw of lots for allotment of residential plots confers a right on the petitioners for the allotment of the plots on the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations?(b) Whether in any case a concluded contract has come into existence between the parties and if so, whether the petitioners can enforce the same by way of writ petition?(c) What is the power of the State Government to issue directive to the PSIEC in terms of Article 90 of the Memorandum of Association of the PSIEC and if so, what is its binding effect? Besides, whether only the governor can issue such directive in his personal capacity and not the State Government?(d) What is the scope of judicial review of the policy decision of the State Government whereby it has vide its impugned decision dated 5.8.2004 (Annexuredecided not to be desirable to change the land use from industrial to residential and whether such policy decision is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of thisThe Division Bench of the High Court first considered whether the writ petitioners were entitled to invoke the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, referred to the judgments of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 ; Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 499 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, VII (1998) SLT 169=(1998) 7 SCC 66 ; Pawan Alloys and Casting Private Limited v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., IV (1997) CLT 49 (SC)=(1997) 7 SCC 251 ; Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 274  and held that even though the State Government and the Corporation, which is an instrumentality of the State, are expected to act fairly and reasonably in their dealing with the members of public, mere inviting of applications and draw of lots by the Corporation did not create a right in favour of the writ petitioners and they cannot invoke the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel for compelling the Corporation to allot plots to them in PhasesB, focal point, Mohali because in the format of application, it was clearly mentioned that acceptance of the application form and earnest money will not place the Corporation under an obligation to allot plot to the applicant.14. The Division Bench then referred to Article 90 of the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation, noticed the judgments of this Court in Rakesh Ranjan Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC (Suppl.) 343; Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 24 ; Chittoor Zilla Vyavasayadarula Sangham v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., VIII (2000) SLT 300=(2001) 1 SCC 396 ; Chairman and MD, BPL Limited v. S.P. Gururaja and Ors., VI (2003) SLT 178=(2003) 8 SCC 567 , and two judgments of the High Court in CWP No. 9626 of 2002, Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation v. State of Punjab; decided on 14.5.2004 and Punjab Financial Corporation Employees Welfare Association v. Punjab Financial Corporation, ILR 2004 (II) 113 (P & H) , and held the decision of the Government not to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential was in the nature of a direction which could be issued under Article 90 of the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation.15. The Division Bench finally considered the question whether the policy decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 is arbitrary, irrational and illogical or is vitiated due to malafides. After noticing the broad parameters of judicial review of policy decisions, the Division Bench referred to minutes of the meeting of the Allotment Committee held on 5.2.2004, notings dated 9.6.2004 and 20.6.2004 recorded by Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce that the possibility of using the land in a manner which may generate maximum revenue may be explored rather than choosing the easy way out of changing land use to residential and held that the apprehension expressed by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the policy has been changed only to accommodate M/s. A.B. Motions (Pvt.) Limited which was intending to set up multiplexes on the land in question is not entirely without basis. The Division Bench opined that the recommendations made by the Allotment Committee on 5.2.2004 have direct bearing on the final decision taken and conveyed vide Memo dated 5.8.2004 and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

Reasoning:
19. In our view, the aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court is not based on correct appreciation of the factual matrix and the background in which the Government declined to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential. It is not in dispute that the State Government acquired land and handed over the same to the Corporation which, as mentioned above, was created for developing infrastructure necessary for industrialization of different areas of the State. The land placed at the disposal of the Corporation was meant to be used for industrial purposes. After carrying out necessary development, the Corporation allotted land to those interested in setting up industrial units. In December 2001, the State Government approved the proposal of the Corporation for earmarkingof the land for Industrial Housing in the existing and coming up focal points and growth centres developed by the Corporation. The object underlying this policy decision was to provide some land for residential purpose to those who had set up or were intending to set up industrial units and the workers already employed or to be employed in such units. It was felt that the availability of residential facility within the focal point or growth centre will help in accelerating industrialization of the area. This is the reason why the phrase ‘Industrialwas used in contrast to the termin Memo dated 26.10.2001. This is also the reason why Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation had, while approving layouts of residential pockets in Phasesparks and multiplex complexes, but unequivocally opposed the idea of allotment of land for housing purposes. The issue was then considered by the State Government and an unequivocal decision was taken not to allow change of land use from industrial to residential. The record produced before the High Court and the documents produced before this Court do not show that the State Government had sanctioned change of land use in PhasesB, Mohali from industrial to commercial and allowed setting up of multiplex complexes within the focal points or growth centres. The writ petitioners have also not placed any material before this Court to show that the State Government had approved conditional allotment of land to M/s. Quark by the Allotment Committee or accepted the tentative recommendation made by it for allotment of land to M/s. A.B. Motion (Pvt.) Ltd. Rather, the events which followed the Staterefusal to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential demonstrate that the said decision was in consonance with the policy of industrialization which was unquestionably in public interest. In August 2004, the Corporation issued an advertisement which was published in ‘Thedated 13.8.2004, inviting applications for 65 industrial plots. In its meeting held on 13.12.2005, the Allotment Committee decided to allot 39.3 acres land in Phasefocal point, Mohali to M/s. Wipro Limited for setting up its unit of Software and I.T. Enabled Services because the same was expected to attract investment of Rs. 1,336 crores and generate employment opportunities for more than 9000 people. The Committee also decided to allot 25 acres land to M/s. Tata Consultancy Services for setting up their Software Development Centre by making an investment of Rs.25 crores with an employment potential of 575 persons. The High Court appears to have been unduly influenced by the fact that the Allotment Committee had considered a proposal for allotment of land to M/s. A.B. Motions (Pvt.) Ltd.. However, in the absence of any tangible or substantive evidence to show that the State Government had taken a conscious decision to allot the surplus land in PhasesB, Mohali for construction of multiplex complexes or for any purpose other than industrial, the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that the decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 is vitiated due to mala fides.The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Section 79 of the 1995 Act, the applicability of which to the case in hand has not been questioned by the writmandates that after coming into operation of any Master Plan in any area, no person shall use or permit to be used any land or carry out development in that area otherwise than in conformity with such Master Plan. Proviso to this section empowers the competent authority to allow continuance of any use of any land for a maximum period of 10 years for the purpose for which it was being used on the date of enforcement of the Master Plan. Section 81 of that Act lays down the procedure for change of land use. In terms of(2) of Section 81, even a department of the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority is required to notify to the competent authority of its intention to carry out any development in respect of any land or change of use. The competent authority can object to such development or change of land use. In that event, the matter is required to be considered and decided by the State Government. In view of these provisions, the State Government was well within its power to take appropriate decision on the proposal made by the Corporation to change the land use from industrial to residential and we do not find any fault with its decision not to sanction such change.We are in complete agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court that no promise much less an enforceable promise was made by the Corporation to the prospective applicants that by making an application pursuant to the advertisement and on being declared successful in the draw of lots, they will get residential plots. Rather, being conscious of the fact that in terms of the approval accorded by the State Government vide Memo dated 26.12.2001, it could utilizearea of the focal point only for Industrial Housing, the Corporation had made it clear to the prospective applicants that there is no certainty of their getting residential plots in PhasesB, Mohali. The decision taken by Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation to approve the layouts of residential pockets in PhasesB, Mohali was not final. The same was subject to sanction of change of land use in accordance with the provisions of the 1995 Act. The Allotment Committee made a clear recommendation against utilization of surplus land for housing purposes. The writ petitioners were very much aware of the tentative character of the initial advertisement as also the advertisement issued for holding draw of lots. By incorporating note in the second advertisement, which has been reproduced herein above, the Corporation had made it known to every one that the entire exercise was provisional and those who did not want to participate in that exercise were at liberty to seek refund of the earnest money. To put it differently, the Corporation did not make any representation to the prospective applicants which induced them to part with their money or adversely change their position. Therefore, the High Court rightly refused to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favour of the writ petitioners.The plea of the writ petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of being allotted residential plots in Phasesin Mohali because in 2002 138 plots were allotted to the successful applicants sans merit. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to mention that the writ petitioners had submitted applications knowing fully well that the same would not obligate the Corporation to allot plots to them. It is rather intriguing that even though approval of the layouts of residential pockets in PhasesB, Mohali by Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation was subject to approval being accorded by the competent authority under the 1995 Act for change of land use from industrial to residential, and the Allotment Committee in which Managing Director of the Corporation had taken part, made a negative recommendation in the matter of allotment of land for housing purposes, the same officer authorized issue of advertisement dated 23.3.2004 for holding provisional draw of lots. In our view, this exercise was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. If the concerned officer had not acted in haste and waited for the decision of the competent authority on the issue of change of land use, the parties may not have been forced to fight this unwarranted litigation. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners cannot, by any stretch of imagination, claim that they had a legitimate expectation in the matter of allotment of plots despite the fact that change of land use was yet to be sanctioned.The plea of discrimination raised by the appellants is being mentioned only to be rejected because no similarity has been pointed out between their cases and the cases of those who had applied for allotment of plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana except that a common draw was held in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.3.2004. In any case, in view of our interpretation of the policy decision contained in Memo dated 26.12.2001, the allotment made in two other focal points, cannot enure to theadvantage and a mandamus cannot be issued in their favour because that would result in compelling the competent authority to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential in contravention of the policy decision taken by the State Government.