Judgment 1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot an Industrial plot of a quarter or half an acre area in Sector 27-A, Faridabad. 2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner M/s. M. R. Engineering Works, Faridabad, has been running a small scale unit for the manufacturing of various items which are supplied to National Thermal Power Corporation, Badarpur. As it was short of space to cope with day-to-day production, it applied for allotment of a quarter or half an acre Industrial Plot in Sector 27-A, Faridabad, (P-1). It deposited the earnest amount of Rs. 3750.00 with the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, (for brevity HUDA ), on 3-8-1979 against receipt, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The application was required to be considered in accordance with the scheme dated 7-6-1979 of the respondent State, which is Annexure P-3. On the advice tendered, petitioner submitted his project report to the Estate Officer, HUDA and the same was forwarded to the Director of Industries, respondent No. 4. The Director found the project report to be technically feasible and recommended allotment of one quarter acre of Industrial Plot in Sector 27-A, Faridabad, to the petitioner (Annexure P-4). It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that plot Nos. 63 and 68 in Sector 27-A, Faridabad, were available at that time, as is evident from the letter dated 26-11-1982 written by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Chandigarh, to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad (P-5). It has further been alleged the genuine claim of the petitioner was ignored and allotments were made in favour of those who did not even submit the project report or their project reports were not approved. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the petitioner to the findings of facts recorded by a Division Bench in judgment dated 3-12-1981 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1981, (P-6). The petitioner made numerous representations from 4-12-1980 to 28-12-1983 but all in vain. 3. The averments made in the petition further show that plot No. 68 in Sector 27-A, has been allotted to one Sh. Arun Khetarpal on 19-11-1981, who made application on 22-6-1981 which is much later than the petitioner. The petitioner made numerous representations from 4-12-1980 to 28-12-1983 but all in vain. 3. The averments made in the petition further show that plot No. 68 in Sector 27-A, has been allotted to one Sh. Arun Khetarpal on 19-11-1981, who made application on 22-6-1981 which is much later than the petitioner. He deposited earnest money on 25-6-1981 and his project report was approved on 29-6-1981. In the case of the petitioner, the allotment of plot has been awaited since 8-8-1979 when he had applied along with the earnest money. His project report was approved on 11-2-1980. 4. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it has been accepted that 10% of the tentative price of the plot measuring one quarter of an acre was received. However, with regard to plot No. 63 measuring one quarter of an acre it has been asserted that the same was allotted to one Mr. O.P. Sharma, on 24-10-1979. In respect of plot No. 68, it has been pointed out that the same could not be allotted to the petitioner as it was measuring one and half acre and the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Director Industries for allotment of one quarter of an acre. 5. In the written statement filed by the Director Industries, respondent No. 4, it has been conceded that recommendations for allotment of a plot measuring one quarter of acre to the petitioner was made. It has further been submitted that the function of the Director Industries was only to examine the project report and to conclude whether the same was technically feasible and that the area of plot was adequate in accordance with the requirement of the project report. 6. The petition was admitted on 31-5-1984. During the course of arguments on 4-8-2004, learned State counsel sought time to seek instructions as to whether there was any proposal by respondents to allot any plot to the petitioner. On 24-8-2004, the case was again adjourned. On 8-9-2004, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded no instructions which resulted in issuance of direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA as well as Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, to remain present in person along with the record of the case on 6-10-2004. The aforementioned persons appeared before the Court on 6-10-2004 and they were granted time to file appropriate affidavit. 2 and 3 pleaded no instructions which resulted in issuance of direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA as well as Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, to remain present in person along with the record of the case on 6-10-2004. The aforementioned persons appeared before the Court on 6-10-2004 and they were granted time to file appropriate affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed stating that no plot of one quarter of an acre was vacant/available in Sector 27-A, Faridabad. It has further been stated that plot No. 68 measuring one and half acre was already allotted on 19-11-1981. 7. Mr. N. S. Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once application of the petitioner has been approved by the Director Industries, as is evident from a perusal of letter dated 17-2-1980 (Annexure P-4), all the requirements of policy dated 7-6-1979 stood fulfilled. According to the learned counsel, HUDA has been practising a policy of pick and choose and making allotments arbitrarily, in flagrant violation of policy as well as Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1981, decided on 3-12-1981. The Division Bench has observed that during he course of arguments, the Estate Officer had admitted that after the filing of that writ petition, three plots were allotted to various persons. In one of those cases, even the project report was not approved and the plot was earmarked in favour of aforementioned allottee. The project report in other two cases was approved only in May and September 1981. On the basis of the aforementioned instances, the Division Bench has concluded that despite availability of the plots with HUDA, no allotment was being made to the petitioner in that writ petition. Mr. Panwar has argued that the project report in his case was approved on 17-2-1980, much earlier to the plot allotted in accordance with the instances quoted by the Division Bench. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is not particular about the size of plot. 8. Learned counsel for HUDA has argued that no plot of one quarter acre is available in Sector 27-A, and therefore, no allotment could be made in favour of the petitioner. However, the fact that the plots of other sizes are available, have not been controverted. 8. Learned counsel for HUDA has argued that no plot of one quarter acre is available in Sector 27-A, and therefore, no allotment could be made in favour of the petitioner. However, the fact that the plots of other sizes are available, have not been controverted. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the difficulty would also arise on account of revision in prices, as no allotment could now be permitted on the rates prevailing in 1980. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The Division Bench while allowing writ Petition No. 1587 of 1981 on 3-12-1981 has referred to the arbitrary approach adopted by HUDA in allotment of Industrial Plots. It is evident from the observations made by the Division Bench that the aforementioned approach was wholly unjustified. Those observations insofar as relevant to the present case are reproduced for a facility of reference : "During the course of arguments it was admitted on behalf of the Estate Officer that after the filing of the writ petition, three plots have been allotted to various persons by the Estate Officer and that in one of those cases the project report has not even been approved and a plot has been earmarked for allotment in his favour. In the other two cases the project report was approved only in May and September 1981. Thus, from these instances it is quite evident that although some plots were available with the authorities but for the reasons best known to them, none out of those plots was allotted to the petitioner. The action of the authority was sought to be supported by Mr. Anand Swarup, Senior Advocate on the ground that the plot could not be allotted to the petitioner as no plot was available suiting to its requirement. This plea is controverted by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is not at all particular about the area of the sector in which allotment of the plot may be made and that the petitioner s simple request is that is project report having been approved and the earnest money having been deposited, a plot may be allotted to it anywhere in the Industrial Estate of Faridabad. As already observed, there wee some plots available with the Estate Officer out of which suitable area would be allotted to the petitioner, but no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner out of those plots. In view of the facts, there can be not gain saying that the action of the authorities in not allotting any plot to the petitioner, especially when it had deposited the earnest money and their project report having been approved by the Director of Industries long ago, is arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot legally be sustained." 10. It is thus obvious that respondent HUDA has adopted a pick and choose policy in allotment of industrial plots. Those who were yet awaiting approval of their project report by the Director of Industries were either allotted industrial plot or the plots were earmarked in their favour. The Division Bench has also found the action to be absolutely unsustainable in the eyes of law as it flagrantly violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case also the project report of the petitioner has been approved by the Director of Industries as is evident from the letter dated 17-2-1980 (Annexure P.4) and plot Nos. 63 and 68 in Sector 27A, Faridabad were available even on 26-11-1982. The afore-mentioned fact is revealed by the letter dated 26-11-1982 written by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Chandigarh to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad (Annexure P.5). Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has suffered on account of the arbitrariness of respondent HUDA and deserves to be allotted one plot of any size in Sector 27A, Faridabad. 11. I am further of the view that even otherwise the petitioner fulfils the basic requirements of the policy framed by the respondent HUDA dated 7-6-1979 (Annexure P.3). In an effort to decentralise the function of allotment of industrial plots by delegating the power in that behalf to the Estate Officer, the only requirement stated in the policy is that the Director of Industries, Haryana has to recommend the application of a prospective allottee. The afore-mentioned recommendation is subject to availability of plots and other usual terms and conditions of allotment. The afore-mentioned recommendation is subject to availability of plots and other usual terms and conditions of allotment. The procedure evolved is that the recommendation of the Director of Industries were to be sent to the concerned Estate Officer with a copy to the Chief Administrator, HUDA so that plot could be allotted to the parties concerned after completing all the formalities envisaged by Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1979. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the requirements of the policy dated 7-6-1979 which was applicable to the case of the petitioner it becomes evident that petitioner had filed an application before the Estate Officer as well as the Director of Industries. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Director of Industries vide his letter dated 17-2-1980, the Estate Officer was advised to allot a plot of one quarter hectare in Industrial Area in Sector 27A, Faridabad. However, nothing was done despite the fact that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements of the policy. Even on that count, the writ petition deserves to be accepted. 12. The only question which remains to be considered is the price of the plot to be realised from the petitioner. It has already deposited an amount of Rs.3,750.00 in the year 1979 which was earnest money in respect of half an acre of plot. The balance amount was to be deposited after the issuance of allotment letter. The petitioner has suffered on account of apathy of respondent - HUDA. It is evident that plots were available with respondent - HUDA even in the year 1982 and the petitioner deserved to be allotted a plot in the year 1980 when his project report was approved on 17-2-1980 by the Director of Industries in accordance with the policy. Therefore, it would be equitable to charge the petitioner the price which was prevailing in the year 1980-81. As the petitioner has made use of the money for all these years which was payable to respondent-HUDA it would be just and proper that the balance amount shall be paid with simple interest @ 9 per cent p.a. from 17-2-1980 till the date of issuance of allotment letter. 13. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 13. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to allot one plot to the petitioner in Sector 27-A, Faridabad, at the price prevailing on 15/17-2-1980. The amount of Rs. 3750.00 which was earnest money already paid shall be deducted from the price and then simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the balance amount be calculated w.e.f. 15/17-2-1980 till the date of allotment. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is entitled to his costs which is determined at Rs. 10,000.00