Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 887 (PNJ)

News Welfare Society, Haryana v. State of Haryana

2014-05-20

ARUN PALLI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) : CM-12139-2013: Leave is granted to place on record Annexure R5/4 to R5/7 and the application is allowed. CM-12138-2013 (For stay): The application filed along with the petition has remained unaddressed and in case any directions are to be passed, same will be done in the main matter. Application stands disposed of. CWP-14526-2011: The petitioner, News Welfare Society, claims to be a registered Society/NGO working in the State of Haryana and nothing else has been set out qua the functioning of the Society and its aims and objectives. Even Certificate of Registration has not been placed on record. The present petition has been filed by one Mr. Raj Kumar Joon, claiming to the President of the Society. In this petition filed in August, 2011, an issue is sought to be raised qua allotment of industrial plots in Sector 17, Bahadurgarh, by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC), respondents No.3 and 4, in the year 2010 without completing the requisite formalities. The specific allegation is qua respondents No.5 to 8 to whom four plots are stated to have been allotted, though they belong to the same family. A representation is stated to have been made on 9.4.2011 which remained unanswered. The relief prayed for, thus, is for conducting an enquiry into the procedural irregularities in allotment of the said industrial plots and seeking action in terms of the representation made by the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure P/1. The present petition continued to be listed before different Benches and was resisted by the respondents. In the course of hearing on 28.3.2014, given the factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petition should be treated as a public interest litigation. This is how the matter has been placed before us. The respondents, inter alia, have raised objections to the maintainability of the petition as well as to the absence of any documentation to establish the status of the petitioner. Respondents No.5 to 8 whose allotments were directly sought to be assailed, have alleged mala fides against Mr. Raj Kumar Joon, who is the President of petitioner-Society and who filed the petition. It has been averred that in May-June, 2008, the said Mr. Respondents No.5 to 8 whose allotments were directly sought to be assailed, have alleged mala fides against Mr. Raj Kumar Joon, who is the President of petitioner-Society and who filed the petition. It has been averred that in May-June, 2008, the said Mr. Joon of D.R. Concrete Company was engaged for supply of concrete cement mixure by installing a concrete mixing plant at a specified labour rate. The functioning of this plant from June to August, 2008 was stated to be erratic. Dispute arose inter se the parties including an alleged threat by Mr. Joon to the subsequent contractor engaged by the said respondents. Insofar as the allotments are concerned, it appears that the allotments do not even pertain to the year 2010 but an advertisement was issued in newspaper on 3.11.2005 inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots at specified rates for different plot sizes numbering 357 plots. A Committee then took a decision to make allotment of the plots based on the project reports. The manner and the enjoyment rights of allotment are stated to be governed by the Estate Management Procedure (EMP-2005) in furtherance of the Industrial Policy, 2005 announced by the State Government. Various parameters have been fixed in the same. The EMP envisaged implementation of the project within two years from the date of offer of possession with the period for starting production extendable by one year on payment of fee. Any transfer of plots/sheds was to be allowed only if the project had been completed and construction of building was as per laid down norms and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of commercial production. The transferee was not to be entitled to further transfer of plot for at least one year. Even change in constitution/share-holding was to be allowed only if the original allottee or his family members retain a minimum of 51% share in the project/company/firm. Leasing was permissible on completion of project and post production for one year subject to retention of 25% of the premises. The HSIIDC was competent to resume the plot, in case the allottee defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of allotment. Suffice it to say that enough checks and balances were built into the terms and conditions, though a question could be raised about the manner of disposal of the plots. The HSIIDC was competent to resume the plot, in case the allottee defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of allotment. Suffice it to say that enough checks and balances were built into the terms and conditions, though a question could be raised about the manner of disposal of the plots. Insofar as respondents No.5 to 8 are concerned, it is stated that they are different legal entities entitled to seek allotment for different nature of projects. It is, however, conceded that there is an element of family ownership qua the four plots. There is pleaded to be absence of any bar in making such allotments. No replication/rejoinder has been filed to the affidavits filed by the respondents. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition is lacking in material particulars, is based on incorrect premise and is motivated with extraneous consideration which do not entitle it to be entertained as a public interest litigation. The functioning and working of the petitioner-Society is not known. The necessary parameters required to be specified for maintaining the PIL, as set out in the PIL Rules, 2010, have not been met. Not only that, while the petitioner claims to be a registered Society, even a copy of the Registration Certificate has not been annexed. The second aspect is that the grievance is sought to be made as if there are certain allotments which came into being in the year 2010, i.e., a year before filing of the petition. The fact is that these allotments were made in the year 2005 in pursuance to an advertisement. The petition is, thus, highly belated and suffers from gross delay and laches and this delay is sought to be hidden by mis-disclosure of facts. Another important element is the man behind the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Raj Kumar Joon who is the President. There is enough material placed on record in the form of submissions and annexures by respondents No.5 to 8 to show an element of personal animosity between the said Mr. Joon and respondents No.5 to 8. Mr. Joon has not filed any affidavit to rebut the same. It, thus, appears that Mr. Joon is trying to grind his axe against respondents No.5 to 8 in the form of the present public interest litigation. In fact, the only allegation is really against those respondents. Joon and respondents No.5 to 8. Mr. Joon has not filed any affidavit to rebut the same. It, thus, appears that Mr. Joon is trying to grind his axe against respondents No.5 to 8 in the form of the present public interest litigation. In fact, the only allegation is really against those respondents. A PIL cannot be utilized to settle personal scores and that too by mis-disclosure and non-disclosure of material facts. Considerable time of this Court has been wasted by such a misconceived PIL and, thus, not only is this petition liable to be dismissed but the petitioner put to terms as to costs. Before we, however, part with the matter, we must note that once respondents No.3 and 4 themselves have set out the terms and conditions on which allotment is made, it is their bounden duty to ensure that allottees have utilized the plots in terms thereof. Thus, we would expect respondents No.3 and 4 to verify that there would be no violation of the terms and conditions of allotment of plots and wherever such terms are violated, necessary action is taken. Such an exercise ought to be carried out within a period of three months from today. Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited with the High Court Mediation Centre within fifteen days from today.