Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1303 (PNJ)

Durga Packagings v. State of Haryana

2015-07-21

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, REKHA MITTAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 28.5.2015, Annexure P.1 passed by respondent No.2 - the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) ordering refund of application money as well as processing fee of applicants along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of closure of the scheme upto 31.5.2015 and for initiating fresh process of allotment. Further prayer has been made for directing respondent No.2 to hold interview of the petitioners as well as other selected candidates within a specific time frame and allot the plots measuring 450 square meters situated in Industrial Model Township, Faridabad in consonance with the criteria and terms and conditions mentioned in the application form and advertisement dated 3.2.2012. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioners are small and micro enterprises/industries running their business units in the city of Faridabad. They were applicants for 450 square meters industrial plots in Industrial Model Township, Faridabad and were also the candidates selected by the lower screening committee of the respondent corporation for being interviewed before the appropriate committee for allotment of plots. Respondent No.2 published an advertisement dated 3.2.2012, Annexure P.2 in Hindustan Times inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots of various categories in Industrial Model Township, Faridabad. A total of 505 plots were advertised in the general category under four different sizes. In the category of plots measuring 450 square meters for which the petitioners had applied, the total number of plots to be allotted was given as 200. Last date for submission of application forms was 15.3.2012. In the advertisement, it was stated that 50% plots out of general category will be reserved for the existing units situated within municipal limits of Faridabad who were operational for a period of five years or more. Such existing units operating from non conforming areas were to be accorded first priority and were required to furnish an undertaking to close down their existing operations from the non conforming areas within a period of two/three years of allotments while the second priority was to be accorded to the existing industrial units in operation for a period of five years or more who needed developed industrial space for their expansion requirements. Various persons including the petitioners applied for allotment of industrial plots measuring 450 square meters. The petitioners submitted their applications along with requisite 10% fee of Rs. 4,05,000/- and Rs. 5000/- as processing fee and other documents. The allotment of industrial plots at the relevant time was governed by the Industrial and Investment Policy 2011. The respondent corporation did not take any action for almost an year. Finally in the month of April -May 2013, the respondent corporation called upon the applicants to submit certain documents so that the interview could be held before the lower screening committee. Since in the category of allotment of industrial plots measuring 450 square meters, the applications received by the corporation were more than three times the plots i.e. 200, as per clause (ix) of chapter 3.7 of Estate Management Procedure, 2011 (EMP 2011), interviews were conducted by the lower screening committee of all the applicants under the said category in May 2013. The result was declared and displayed on the website of the corporation and intimation of the same was also sent to the applicants around April-May 2014. Out of the total applicants, 600 were selected including the petitioners. Thereafter, these applicants were to be interviewed by the Final committee consisting of Managing Director, HSI1DC, Director of Industries, Haryana and Senior most General Manager of HSI1DC. In the month of July 2014, the petitioners were asked to bring certain documents vide letter dated 10.7.2014, Annexure P.8. The proposed interview was postponed by the respondent corporation and letters in this regard were issued to the applicants. The respondent corporation had allotted the industrial plots under all other categories except the 450 square meters category to the successful allottees after going through the prescribed process. The petitioners visited the office of the corporation many times but in vain. Finally, the respondent corporation issued office order dated 28.5.2015, Annexure P.1 directing its officials to refund application money along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum and for initiating fresh process of acceptance of applications. Some of the petitioners also received refund letters along with cheques in the month of July 2015. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents had illegally abandoned the scheme in respect of which the petitioners had submitted their applications. Some of the petitioners also received refund letters along with cheques in the month of July 2015. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents had illegally abandoned the scheme in respect of which the petitioners had submitted their applications. It was argued that in respect of other categories under the same advertisement, allotments were made whereas without justification, the allotments under the category i.e. 450 square meters under which the petitioners had applied, were cancelled. 5. The petitioners had applied in the category of plots measuring 450 square meters. 200 plots were offered under the said category for allotment whereas the applicants exceeded more than three times. The interviews were conducted by the Lower Screening Committee of all the applicants in May, 2013. Out of total applicants, 600 were selected which included the petitioners. The said successful applicants were further to be interviewed by the Final Committee consisting of Managing Director, HSIIDC, Director of Industries, Haryana and senior most General Manager of HSIIDC. In the meantime, no final interview was held and the respondents decided to scrap the allotment of plots in the said category and directed the refund of application money along with simple interest of 8% per annum. No contract had come into being by issuance of mere advertisement and interview by the Lower Level Screening Committee. No final allotment had matured in favour of the petitioners who could claim that vested right had accrued to them. In such a situation no legally enforceable right existed in favour of the petitioners. It was for the State to proceed or not to proceed with the allotment of plots in that category. The action taken by the respondents is not liable to be interfered with unless the same is arbitrary or malafide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any arbitrariness or malafide on the part of the respondent corporation. Still further, while refunding the money to the petitioners, the respondent corporation had awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the closure of the scheme till the amount was returned. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Still further, while refunding the money to the petitioners, the respondent corporation had awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the closure of the scheme till the amount was returned. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Paradise Printers and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, AIR 1988 SC 354 , wherein while considering an identical issue, the Apex Court held that the applicant cannot claim any legal right in the site until there is official communication as required under the relevant rules. It was recorded as under :- "9. Relying on these provisions, it was urged that the appellants had a right to obtain transfer of sites in respect of which the lots were first drawn in their favour. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, at that stage, there was no intimation of allotment of sites to the appellants. There was no official communication to them as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8. Such intimation alone confers right on the appellants to obtain possession of the sites. The intimation must be sent by a registered letter giving particulars of the sites allotted and the premium payable in respect thereof. In the absence of any such communication, the appellants cannot to be held to have the right to get transfer of sites in their favour." 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.