ARJUN ODEDRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who is holding industrial plot in G.I.D.C. Engineering Estate, Gandhinagar has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to allot one plot to the petitioner for residential purpose.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as petitioner is holding two plots in G.I.D.C. Engineering Estate of Gandhinagar in Sector 28, which are used for industrial engineering purpose. As per the policy of the G.I.D.C., he is entitled to one plot for residential purpose. He has submitted that infact under the guise that 20% quota for allotment of residential plot to the engineering units is already exhausted, even petitioner has not been issued the form. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that there is no such policy of 20% ceiling. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner be considered alongwith other applications which are pending since 2005.

(3.) Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent. It is categorically stated that as such there is a scheme/policy which is consistently followed by the G.I.D.C. That 20% of the residential plots are reserved for the engineering units and 20% are reserved for employees and there are other reservations also. It is submitted that last allotment of residential plot was made in the year 2005 and thereafter, the G.I.D.C. has stopped allotting residential plots to the owners of the engineering units as their quota is exhausted. It is further submitted that even otherwise petitioner is not entitled to the residential plot in as much as wife of the petitioner, who is also Joint Director in the company of the petitioner i.e. Biocare Remedies Private Limited, was infact allotted one residential plot considering the policy prevailing at that time and wife of the petitioner has sold the said plot by registered sale deed executed in the year 2009. Therefore, it is submitted that infact as one plot was already allotted, petitioner is not entitled to second plot. It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the aforesaid conduct, it appears that petitioner does not want to use the residential plot which may be allotted to him for residential purpose as the plot which was already allotted to his wife, is already sold. It is submitted that plot is to be allotted for their own use and residential purpose. Therefore, it is submitted that even otherwise petitioner is not entitled to residential plot.