Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 42 (PNJ)

Pharma Labs v. State of Haryana

2012-01-09

A.N.JINDAL, HEMANT GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby challenge to the withdrawal of the provisional allotment of industrial plot remained unsuccessful. 2. The appellant applied for an industrial plot advertised by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation in the year 1983. It was on 28.4.1984, an approval was granted for allotment of one kanal plot. The appellant was to remit a sum of Rs. 9000/- against 15% of the cost of plot within 30 days. The appellant was permitted to deposit the amount along with interest after the said period of 30 days. On the deposit of the said amount, a provisional letter of allotment was issued on 30.12.1988 allotting plot No.187 measuring 500 sq. meters. The tentative price of the plot was mentioned to be Rs.175/- per sq. meter. The appellant was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.6875/- to make up 25% of the cost of the plot. The appellant remitted the said sum of Rs.6875/- on 31.3.1989 along with a sum of Rs.99/- as interest. The appellant was also to complete the formalities i.e. loan from the financial institution, but the since the appellant has not taken the said steps in terms of the letter of allotment, the provisional letter of allotment was withdrawn vide letter dated 25.7.1989. The subsequent representation was declined on 30.10.1989. 3. In a challenge to the withdrawal of the provisional letter of allotment, the stand of the respondents is that the appellant was to comply with the conditions of the provisional letter of allotment. The appellant was also given notice Annexure R-1 on 2.6.1989 to comply with the terms of the letter of allotment, but the appellant failed to comply with the conditions. It is pointed out that present is not the case of resumption as the appellant has tried to built up. 4. The writ petition has since been dismissed, inter alia, for the reasons that the provisional offer of allotment does not constitute a binding obligation upon the respondent to make a firm allotment so long as it was hedged with conditions and the appellant did not fulfill the conditions resulting in withdrawal of the plot. 5. 4. The writ petition has since been dismissed, inter alia, for the reasons that the provisional offer of allotment does not constitute a binding obligation upon the respondent to make a firm allotment so long as it was hedged with conditions and the appellant did not fulfill the conditions resulting in withdrawal of the plot. 5. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of India Navigation Company vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, [2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1189] : 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 714 in order to contend that the delay in compliance with the conditions of the provisional letter of allotment should be condoned as was done in the aforesaid case. 6. In the provisional letter of allotment dated 30.12.1988 (Annexure P4), the appellant was required to fulfill the following conditions:- “(1) and (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx i) Please get the unit registered with the General Manager of the Distt. Industries Centre concerned for medium scale unit, registration/ letter of intent from the Director General Technical Dev. (DGTD)/ Government of India should be obtained. ii) Please get the drawings of the unit approved from the Senior Town Planner/ Divisional Town Planner concerned, copy of the Zoning plan of the plot required for the preparation of detailed drawings may be obtained from the office of DTP concerned. iii) Arrangement of finance by getting the loan required to meet the cost of land, building and machinery sanctioned from Haryana Financial Corporation/ may scheduled bank/State and all India Financial Institution. OR In case of self-financing of the project, please furnish us proof regarding availability of liquid resources to meet the total cost of project. iv) List of plant and Machinery to be installed. (4 & 5)xx xx xx (6) The LPA shall stand withdrawn automatically after expiry of period mentioned in para 5 above without any further reference and no correspondence in this respect will be entertained. (7) xx xx xx” 7. In response to the said communication, the appellant has not complied with any of the conditions as mentioned above. (4 & 5)xx xx xx (6) The LPA shall stand withdrawn automatically after expiry of period mentioned in para 5 above without any further reference and no correspondence in this respect will be entertained. (7) xx xx xx” 7. In response to the said communication, the appellant has not complied with any of the conditions as mentioned above. Since the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of the provisional letter of allotment, no binding and concluded contract came into existence as the letter of allotment was to be issued only on compliance of the preconditions mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, (2009) 4 SCC 369, held that the non compliance of the terms of the letter of allotment does not give rise to binding contract. It was observed: “17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted before us that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case as there was in fact no agreement/contract between the parties. He also submitted that as the appellant failed to accept the offer of the respondent Authority by making payment of the amount as directed in the letter of allotment, there was no binding contract between the parties and, therefore, Section 17 of the Act has no application at all. It was further submitted that the forfeiture of the amount could have been and rightly done by the respondent Authority by invoking the mandate of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment.” 8. In view of the the fact that no binding contract came into existence for non compliance of the conditions of provisional letter of allotment, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed. Dismissed. ----------