RAVI GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nisheeth Yadav appearing for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent no. 1.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23 October 2009, passed by Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Authority (herein after referred to as 'Authority'), respondent no. 2, whereby his representation to issue allotment letter of the plot in question in his favour has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made to the effect that the respondents be directed to issue allotment letter in favour of the petitioner with regard to Plot No. R-6, which has been reserved for the petitioner in Recreational Area, City Park, Greater Noida.

(3.) As per record, the facts of the present case in brief are that a scheme was floated by the Authority for allotment of institutional plots in the development area falling within the jurisdiction of the authority. The petitioner applied for one of the plot measuring 5000 sq. m. and in pursuance whereof Reservation Letter dated 18 December 2001 was issued, whereby it was provided that area measuring 5000 sq. m. was reserved in favour of the petitioner and the premium of the plot was calculated at the rate of Rs. 640/- per sq. m., which comes to Rs. 32,00,000/- and it was directed that ten percent of the total premium was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of the issuance of the said Reservation Letter dated 18 December 2001. In the aforesaid amount, Rs. 10,000/-, deposited by the petitioner, towards the registration amount, was adjusted. It was also provided that the formal allotment letter shall be issued only after the receipt of the reservation money; any request for extension of time to deposit the reservation money will not be considered in any case; and in case of default, offer shall stand cancelled. Since the petitioner could not deposit the amount within time, he applied for extension of time and time was extended vide letter dated 6th February 2002 by 30 days. When the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, within the time so extended, he again applied for extension of time vide his letter dated 16th February, 2002, on the ground that he had requested for three months time to deposit the money but only one month's time was granted, therefore, two months' further time may be granted to him for depositing of the amount. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted further time to deposit the amount vide letter dated 23rd April 2002 and thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs. 3 lacs on 12th June 2002 in cash in Bank of Baroda. Subsequently, on 24th September 2004 the petitioner allegedly applied for permission to deposit the balance amount so due on the ground that he was orally suggested to apply for a bigger plot and that in the meantime he may deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in lump sum and the balance amount may be deposited by him after allotment of the bigger plot and therefore he prayed that he may be permitted to deposit the balance amount and formalities of registry etc. be done in his favour. Subsequently, on 10th November 2004 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by Bank Draft in Bank of Baroda. It is alleged that permission was granted to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the amount was accepted by the respondents authorities. Allegedly, the petitioner made another application dated 5th October 2007 that the plot so reserved in favour of the petitioner vide Reservation Letter dated 18th December 2001 may be allotted to him and allotment letter be issued to that affect. It appears that vide office order dated 11 August 2008 a permanent committee of six officers of the Authority was constituted by the Chief Executive Officer to look into any type of the grievances of the allottees, so that they may not run from one officer to another officer for redressal of their grievances. It was provided in the aforesaid order dated 11 August 2008 that the Committee will forward its recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority and after approval of the recommendation, the concerned Project Manager will inform the person having grievance in writing. The petitioner has placed on record as Annexure-9 to the petition, the recommendation of such Committee dated 3rd September 2008 to the effect that since the petitioner has already deposited 97% of the amount due within time, therefore, after taking interest and penal interest on Rs. 10,000/-, which was deposited without delay, allotment of the plot may be made in favour of the petitioner. Since as per allegations of the petitioner, no decision was being taken by the Authority regarding allotment of the plot in question, he filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21444 of 2009 seeking a relief of mandamus by commanding the respondents to issue allotment letter in his favour. The said writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent no. 2, who shall decide the same by a speaking order preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated 20.5.2009. However, when the same was not being decided, he filed a contempt petition,being Contempt Petition No. 3212 of 2009 wherein vide order dated 8.9.2009 notices were issued to the respondents. Subsequently, an affidavit of compliance was filed by the opposite party in contempt petition annexing the copy of the order dated 23rd October 2009, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no. 2. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.