Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 384 (PNJ)

Ramesh Chawla v. State of Punjab

2012-02-29

RAJIVE BHALLA, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of allotment of two plots, measuring 2500 Sq. Yds. each, in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in Phase VIII-B, Mohali by way of draw of lots held on 13.01.2006 and order dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure P-31) by which his representation dated 28.02.2006 was declined and also a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents not to proceed further in the process of allotment of two plots to respondent Nos.6 and 7 and further directing them to allot a plot measuring 2500 Sq. Yds. to the petitioner in Phase VIII-B, Mohali or at any place at Mohali, and directing respondent No.4 not to dispossess the petitioner till a plot measuring 2500 Sq. Yds. in Industrial Area, Mohali is allotted to him and directing the respondents to resume the plots of the allottees at Mohali allotted by the Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 02.05.2000 or any other allotment under the Off-the-Shelf Scheme or general allotment which have not been utilized by the allottees so far and the same be allotted to needy persons like the petitioner. 2. In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement in The Tribune dated 11.06.2005 inviting offers for allotment of industrial plots of various sizes on leasehold basis at different Focal Points in Punjab including Mohali wherein two plots of 2500 Sq. Yds. and one plot of 5000 Sq. Yds. were kept for allotment. The petitioner applied for a plot in general category measuring 2500 Sq. Yds. for setting up an industry for the purpose of manufacturing Tractor & Combine parts and Auto parts. The Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Punjab, vide its notification dated 02.09.2005, notified a new policy for allotment of land in various industrial focal points as well as allotment of semi developed/developed land under “Off-the-Shelf” Scheme in super-session of the notification issued on 10.12.1998, according to which the procedure was laid down for inviting applications etc.The relevant provisions of the said notification are reproduced as under: “II. ALLOTMENT UNDER “OFF-THE-SHELF SCHEME” a) Procedure for inviting applications The applications for allotment of plots under Off the Shelf Scheme would be received in Udyog Sahayak, Department of Industries. ALLOTMENT UNDER “OFF-THE-SHELF SCHEME” a) Procedure for inviting applications The applications for allotment of plots under Off the Shelf Scheme would be received in Udyog Sahayak, Department of Industries. Entire secretarial works such as scrutiny of applications, placing the proposals before the Sub Committee and the Allotment Committee shall be done by the Udyog Sahayak. After scrutiny, Udyog Sahayak shall place the applications before a Sub-Committee comprising of the following members:- i) Director of Industries & Chairman Commerce ii) Chief town Planner Member iii) Chief Architect Member iv) MD, PSIEC Member v) MD, PSIDC Member vi) Member Secretary, PPCB Member vii) Chief Coordinator Udyog Sahayak Convener b) Criteria The Sub-Committee shall examine the applications, keeping in view the following parameters:- a) Viability of the project. b) Impact on environment. c) Technology involved. d) Export earnings. e) Employment generated. f) Qualifications and experience. g) Foreign Direct or Investment. The Sub-Committee shall also make assessment of the land requirement of the applicant based on the project report and building plans to be submitted alongwith applications. The recommendations of the Sub-Committee in cases of plots less than 2 acres will be placed before Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce for allotment, while in cases of plots of 2 acres and above, the recommendations will be placed before the Allotment Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary to Govt. Punjab with following members:- (i) Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Punjab. (ii) Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce. (iii) Principal Secretary, Environment. (iv) Principal Secretary, Power. (v) Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development. (vi) Principal Secretary, Labour. (vii) Managing Director, PSIEC/concerned Developing Agency. (viii) Director of Industries & Commerce. The Allotment Committee may co-opt other Administrative Secretaries/State Government Officials as and when required.” “III. GENERAL SCHEME a) PROCEDURE FOR INVITING APPLICATIONS Applications shall be invited by PSIEC/concerned developing agency through press advertisement. The Developing Agency shall undertake scrutiny of the applications, placing proposals before following Sub-Committee which shall be headed by Industrial Advisor-cum- Additional Director of Industries. (i) Joint Managing Director, PSIEC. (ii) Representative of MD, PFC. (iii) Representative of MD, PSIDC. (iv) Representative of PPCB. (v) G.M. DIC concerned. (vi) Representative of MD, ELTOP. (vii) Representative of MD, PAIC. (viii) Officer Incharge of the concerned developing Agency Convener. (i) Joint Managing Director, PSIEC. (ii) Representative of MD, PFC. (iii) Representative of MD, PSIDC. (iv) Representative of PPCB. (v) G.M. DIC concerned. (vi) Representative of MD, ELTOP. (vii) Representative of MD, PAIC. (viii) Officer Incharge of the concerned developing Agency Convener. The Sub-Committee shall undertake the preliminary scrutiny and make its recommendations to the Allotment Committee having regard to requirement of land and eligibility of applicants keeping in view the parameters given under II(b) above. b) ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE Allotment of plots upto 2 acres, excepting under “Off-the-Shelf Scheme” shall be made by the Allotment Committee consisting of the following:- i) Director of Industries and Chairman Commerce, Punjab. ii) MD PSIEC. iii) MD PSIDC. iv) MD PFC. v) Chairman/Member Secretary PPCB. vi) Industrial Advisor -cum- Additional Director of Industries. vii) Nominee of the developing agency Member –Secretary The Allotment Committee shall make allotment of plots after considering the recommendations of Sub Committee. The decision of the Allotment Committee on applications for allotment of plots shall be final and no appeal shall lie against it. The Allotment Committee would meet as and when required and devise its own procedure for conducting the business.” 3. According to the aforesaid Scheme, the Sub-Committee was entrusted the job of scrutinizing the applications and make their recommendations to the Allotment Committee after assessing the merit of the applicants in terms of the parameters (a) to (g) laid down in the criteria and, thereafter, the Allotment Committee was to make allotment after considering the recommendations of Sub-Committee and for the purpose of allotment, they were given a free hand to devise its own procedure. Though there were only two plots of 2500 Sq. Yds., yet 10 applications were scrutinized by the Sub-Committee and after giving them marks under different heads, submitted its recommendations to the Allotment Committee. The chart of all the applicants alongwith their total marks, as produced by the petitioner in Annexure P-15, is reproduced as under: Focal Point: MOHALI 2500 Sq. Though there were only two plots of 2500 Sq. Yds., yet 10 applications were scrutinized by the Sub-Committee and after giving them marks under different heads, submitted its recommendations to the Allotment Committee. The chart of all the applicants alongwith their total marks, as produced by the petitioner in Annexure P-15, is reproduced as under: Focal Point: MOHALI 2500 Sq. Yards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Project Emp- Experi- Export Value Market Qualifi- Know- Women Overall Total applicant & loym ence Potential addition tie up cation ledge & entrepreneur evaluation No. (General) ent Project Women Overall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lambodra Computer 3 3 5 3 4 3 0 0 21 Infotech Software (4234) Sikander EP, Tent, 1 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 16 Sultan Batla Store (4237) Tents M/s Arsh Scaffolding 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 19 International products (4241) Wg. Com. Software 2 0 0 1 3 3 3 0 12 Dharm Paul IT Unit Singh Dhillon (4242) (Ex.Servc) Amit Rail 2 3 0 3 3 4 3 0 18 Bindlish coach (4232) parts Inder Tractor 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 0 23 Enterprises parts MICTO Precision 2 3 0 4 3 4 4 2 22 Turners turned (4236) components Ramesh Tractor & 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 0 24 Chawla combine (4238) auto parts Dynamic Rigid 1 5 2 1 3 3 5 0 20 Sliper PVC Plastic Pipes & Industries fittings (4239 Amit Jain Fruit 2 5 2 5 5 4 5 0 28 (4240) preserves -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The petitioner received a letter No.PSIEC/EO/AO/Regd. 26323 dated 02.02.2006 by which his earnest money of Rs.6,75,000/-, which was deposited by him with the application for allotment, was returned by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner made inquiries and came to know that the draw of lots was held on 13.01.2006 and two plots measuring 2500 Sq. Yds. were allotted to respondent Nos.6 & 7. The petitioner did not accept the refund and returned the aforesaid cheque to respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 06.02.2006. Being aggrieved of the draw of lots dated 13.01.2006, the petitioner filed CWP No.2744 of 2006 titled as ‘Ramesh Chawla Vs. Yds. were allotted to respondent Nos.6 & 7. The petitioner did not accept the refund and returned the aforesaid cheque to respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 06.02.2006. Being aggrieved of the draw of lots dated 13.01.2006, the petitioner filed CWP No.2744 of 2006 titled as ‘Ramesh Chawla Vs. State of Punjab and others’ in which all the prayers, which have been made in the present writ petition, were made but the writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2006 with the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner is to make a representation to respondent No.1 to 5. He further prays that till the representation is not decided by the competent authority, status quo be maintained qua possession of the plots in question. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation within two days, i.e. on or before 02.03.2006. The respondents are directed to pass a speaking order on the representation. Till the final order is passed, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, qua possession of the plots in question. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.” 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a representation on 28.02.2006 and vide order dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure P- 31), the representation was dismissed. 6. The sum and substance of the argument of counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in the report of the Sub- Committee and as per chart Annexure P-15, he had secured 24 marks but the allotment has been made to respondent Nos.6 and 7 who had secured 23 and 22 marks respectively. It is further argued that the Allotment Committee had no jurisdiction to hold draw of lots after the recommendation of the Sub-Committee and should have allotted the plot to the applicant-petitioner who was second highest in the chart Annexure P- 15. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that as per the Scheme (Annexire P-11), the Sub-Committee was constituted for scrutiny of the applications on the basis of the parameters laid down in the criteria but the recommendations were not binding on the Allotment Committee which was empowered to devise its own procedure for conducting the business. He further submitted that since there were 10 applications as against two plots, therefore, a benchmark was fixed by the Allotment Committee for entertaining the applications. He further submitted that since there were 10 applications as against two plots, therefore, a benchmark was fixed by the Allotment Committee for entertaining the applications. In the present case, the benchmark was 15 marks and the applicants who had secured more than 15 marks were treated alike and for the fair allotment, the procedure evolved was of draw of lots in which respondent Nos.6 and 7 were successful and have been allotted plots accordingly. In this regard, he has referred to the proceedings of the 39th meeting of the Allotment Committee held on 03.01.2006 under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Government of Punjab, in which the following decision was taken: “After having deliberations with regard to the guidelines issued by the Director of Industries & Commerce to the sub-group for giving numerical recommendations concerning applicants, the allotment committee observed that it have had no means to give its own numerical recommendations to each applicant. Since the sub-group had already given numerical recommendations of each applicant, the committee decided to lay minimum 10 marks in low demand areas and minimum 15 marks in high demand areas out o 37 marks to determine the eligibility of an applicant for consideration of allotment. By adopting this criteria and in the interest of fair play, the committee decided as a matter of policy to allot plots to all the eligible applicants in those categories/sizes where number of plots exceed or are equal to the number of eligible applicants in the respective category/sizes. However, where number of eligible applicants are more than the available plots, allotment would be made through draw of lots in the respective category/sizes.” 8. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 9. The only bone of contention is about the jurisdiction of the Allotment Committee in evolving its own procedure for allotment of the plots. We are not at all impressed with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Allotment Committee was bound to accept the recommendations of the Sub-Committee which was only to undertake a preliminary scrutiny and make recommendations to the Allotment Committee having regard to the requirement of land and eligibility of the applicants keeping in view the parameters laid down in the criteria in the Scheme Annexure P-11. It is categorically mentioned in the Scheme that the Allotment Committee shall make allotment after considering recommendations of the Sub-Committee and the Allotment Committee would meet as and when required and devise its own procedure for conducting the business. The Allotment Committee had found that since the applications were more than the plots available, therefore, they had devised the procedure to lay down minimum 15 marks in the high demand areas for the purpose of determining the eligibility of an applicant for consideration of allotment and as it had found that the number of applicants were more than the number of plots who had secured more than 15 marks, therefore, in order to give equal opportunity and to bring transparency decided to hold a draw of lots by putting all the eligible applicants in it and left it to their luck instead of keeping it in their own hands. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any error in the approach of the respondents much-less the Allotment Authorities in the allotment of plots to respondent Nos.6 and 7 by draw of lots and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.