MICRON INSTRUMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation canceling the allotment of industrial plot and seeking for the plot allotted to the petitioner or in the alternative, for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- paid as earnest with interest @ 18% from the date of payment till the date of return.II. The course of judgment

(2.) The case examines the action of the 'state' functionary canceling an allotment of industrial plot to the petitioner. The cancellation order does not set out the reasons but explanations come-forth in pleadings in writ petition. The confirmation of allotment sets some pre-requisites which the state explains as have been breached by the petitioner. To what extent does the alleged breach affect the allotment process, the appropriate forum for enforcement and how the petitioner has, by his conduct, disentitled himself to the relief's is the course of this judgment III. The basis of claim

(3.) The averments in the petition are to the effect mat the petitioner is an industrial unit and for expansion purpose, it had applied for an industrial plot at Gurgaon, Palam Road. It had initially applied for 4 acre plot but later on applied for 2 acre plot. The property, which had been originally applied in two plots appeared to have been involved in litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and when the Corporation could not deliver the property, it offered two adjacent plot numbers 376-377 for a stipulated price on 23.12.1986. In terms of the Provisional Letter of Allotment (hereinafter referred to as the ''PLA''), the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,40,000/- being 25% of the total consideration of two plots. Since it was not a composite plot but in two different plots, the petitioner had applied for a joint zoning to be made so that the petitioner could erect an industrial shed to its specifications. There had been several communications between the petitioner and the Corporation making specific request for such a joint zoning. In the letter dated 23.12.1986, the Corporation had made four stipulations, purporting to be necessary prerequisites for getting a confirmed sale: (i) to get the unit registered with the General Manager, District Industries Centre as a small scale unit or if it was a medium scale unit to register it from the Director General Technical Development, Government of India; (ii) to get the drawings of the unit approved by the Senior Town Planner/Divisional Town Planner; (iii), to get the loan required to meet the cost of land, building and machinery, sanctioned from Haryana Financial Corporation/Scheduled Bank or approved financial institution; (iv) proof of having completed the above mentioned pre-requisites within 120 days from the date of letter of issue of the allotment letter. The letter specifically provided that failure to comply the four pre-requisite formalities would result in the offer of allotment being withdrawn unless die validity itself was extended in writing by the Corporation. In response to the communication by the petitioner and giving an explanation as to the status of the pre-requisites, the petitioner stated that (i) the unit had been registered with the General Manager, DIC as a small scale unit; (ii) he had written to the Manager (IA), Gurgaon for providing zoning plans of Plot Nos.376 and 377 and to make a joint zoning of these plots; (iii) the petitioner would meet the cost of the buildings from its own fund and would not require any institutional funding; (iv) price of the plant and machinery had already been furnished in its earlier communication dated 20.03.1987. The attempt of the petitioner was, therefore, to show that there had been no lapse on the part of the petitioner. Without reference to the response made by the petitioner on 08.06.1987, there was a fresh communication stating that if all the formalities had not been fulfilled by 31.07.1987, it would be presumed mat the petitioner-unit was no longer interested in making use of the property. Later on, an extension was granted till 15.12.1987 by the Corporation and warned the petitioner mat no further extension will be given. Simultaneous to this letter, the District Town Planner had sent a letter on 26.10.1987, requiring petitioner's presence at their office for obtaining combined zoning of plot Nos.376 and 377. On 21.12.1987, soon after the time stipulated by the Corporation, the petitioner had nominated two persons to collect the zoning plans from the District Town Planner. Oh 17.03.1988, the Corporation served a letter of withdrawal of the allotment purporting to be in continuation of the letter written on 01.10.1987 withdrawing the allotment and returning the cheque drawn for Rs. 2,40,000/-which was earlier paid by the petitioner as earnest money. It is this final communication dated 17.03.1988 (Annexure P-27), which is subject of challenge in this writ petition.IV. The principal area of conflict