JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.: - Civil Writ Petition No.13452 of 1992, ‘Shahabuddin (Makrana) Marble Co., Chandigarh Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others’ and Civil Writ Petition No.6115 of 1993, ‘Jaswinder Kaur and another Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh and others’, involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, are proposed to be disposed of together by this common order being passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13452 of 1992, Shahabuddin (Makrana) Marble Co., Chandigarh Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others. Facts have also been taken from this writ petition. 2. The petitioner firm, through its proprietor, Shahabuddin, (since deceased, and being represented by his Legal Representatives), has brought this writ petition praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing order dated 09.03.1992 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HUDA’), whereby offer of allotment of a two-kanal industrial plot bearing No.32, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, has been cancelled, as also memorandum dated 15.09.1992 (Annexure P-16). 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that having come to know that the respondents had decided to allot plots of various sizes at Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, petitioner made an application dated nil (Annexurer P-1), along with a demand draft of Rs.5500/-, for allotment of a two-kanal plot in Industrial Area, Phase- II, Panchkula. A scheme/project report (Annexure P-2) for the proposed industry was also submitted by the petitioner. Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 09.12.1981 (Annexure P-3) asked for certain information from the petitioner. After the requisite information was furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.2, vide letter dated 04.05.1982 (Annexure P-4) asked the petitioner to appear for interview before the Technical Committee, on 11.05.1982 at 11:00 A.M., which he participated in. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 25.03.1983 (Annexure P-5) from respondent No.1 stating that it had been decided to allot a two-kanal industrial plot bearing No.32, Phase-II, Panchkula, to the petitioner, subject to approval of its project report by the Industries Department, Haryana. The petitioner was also required to deposit 25% of the total tentative sale price of the site in question. This communication was followed by another memorandum dated 04.04.1983 (Annexure P-6) conveying to the petitioner that 25% of the tentative sale price of the plot in question was Rs.13,750/-. The petitioner was also required to deposit 25% of the total tentative sale price of the site in question. This communication was followed by another memorandum dated 04.04.1983 (Annexure P-6) conveying to the petitioner that 25% of the tentative sale price of the plot in question was Rs.13,750/-. Accordingly, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 07.04.1983 (Annexure P-7), sent a demand draft for Rs.8,250/- and another demand draft for Rs.5,500/- to respondent No.2. Then, vide letter dated 18.05.1987 (Annexure P-10), petitioner was asked to appear before the Allotment Committee on 25.05.1978 but the petitioner did not appear before that Committee. The petitioner was again called upon, vide letter dated 26.05.1987 (Annexure P-11), to appear before the Allotment Committee on 08.06.1987. However, on that day, interview could not be held. Thereafter, petitioner was never called for interview. 4. The Industries Department, Haryana, did not approve the project report and the Government of Haryana also decided to cancel all the offers of allotment of industrial plots made on the basis of recommendations of the then Minister, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Accordingly, vide memorandum dated 09.03.1992 (Annexure P-15), the Chief Administrator, HUDA, conveyed to the petitioner that offer of allotment of the industrial plot made to him had been cancelled and, thereafter, vide memo dated 15.09.1992 (Annexure P-16), the 2nd respondent returned to the petitioner a cheque for Rs.13750/- towards refund of the earnest money/security deposited by the petitioner. 5. As aforesaid, the order dated 09.03.1992 and memorandum dated 15.09.1992 are under challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the project report submitted by the petitioner was not approved by the Department of Industries, Haryana, and the Government had decided to cancel all the offers of allotment of industrial plots under the discretionary quota and for these reasons the offer of allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled/withdrawn. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, according to the learned Senior Counsel, a similar circumstanced person, namely, Dr. Sanjeev Verma was denied such a plot. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, according to the learned Senior Counsel, a similar circumstanced person, namely, Dr. Sanjeev Verma was denied such a plot. He filed CWP No.2677 of 1990 wherein, this Court, vide order dated 01.10.1990, directed the respondents to deliver possession of the industrial plot, which was offered to him. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be treated differently. Secondly, earnest money was deposited by the petitioner in the year 1983 and it was acknowledged by the respondents vide receipt (Annexure P-8). However, after hopefully waiting for a considerably long time, the petitioner received the impugned orders cancelling the offer of allotment and before passing the same, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This, accordingly to the learned Senior Counsel, is violative of the well recognized principle of audi alteram partem and, therefore, action of the respondents is vitiated. 9. On the contrary, on behalf of the respondents, it has been argued that offers of allotment of industrial plots were made to various persons including the petitioner on the recommendations of the then Minister of Town and Country Planning, without there being any advertisement or public notice inviting applications from the intending purchasers. However, the offers so made were decided to be withdrawn by the Government. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, offer made to the petitioner was subject to approval of petitioner’s project report by the Industries Department, Haryana, but the Industries Department did not approve the project report and that was also one of the reasons for cancelling the offer of allotment in favour of the petitioner. 10. It is true that no applications were invited for allotment of plots to the intending purchasers and that the petitioner’s project report was not approved by the Industries Department, Haryana, however, the order of cancellation/withdrawal of the offer of allotment has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Also, the project report has been rejected without hearing the petitioner as the meeting fixed for 08.06.1987 was not held and the petitioner was not called for interview thereafter. Also, the project report has been rejected without hearing the petitioner as the meeting fixed for 08.06.1987 was not held and the petitioner was not called for interview thereafter. It may be added that earnest money amounting to Rs.13750/- having been accepted by the respondents from the petitioner, the petitioner at least deserved an opportunity of hearing before an order adverse to his interest was passed. 11. In the circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case or entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of an industrial plot, we accept the writ petitions, set aside memo dated 09.03.1992 (Annexure P-15) and direct the respondents to consider the matter afresh after taking into consideration what has been said for and against cancellation of offer of allotment and all other attending circumstances, including the ones that applications were not invited by way of public notice, there existed no scheme for allotment of plots under the discretionary quota and it had been decided by the Government to cancel all the offers of allotment made to various applicants. Before passing the final order, the respondents shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within six months from today. 12. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.