MANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Bachelor of Engineering (Metallurgy) and had gone abroad for further studies to do M.S. Prior to his going abroad, in consequence of an advertisement issued by the Managing Director of Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited, he had applied for allotment of industrial plot on lease- hold basis in Phase IX, S.A.S. Nagar, Focal Point. Along with his application for allotment of plot, he had also submitted Project Report and the other required documents. He fulfilled all the pre-requisites needed for allotment of industrial plot. The application was filed on Feb. 15, 1990 prior to the last date fixed for the purpose. The application was received in the office of Managing director vide receipt No. 1002 dated 15.2.1990. He did not hear anything in the matter and after enquiries made in that behalf he came to know that it was only after scrutiny of the applications that eligible persons would be interviewed. Even though the petitioner had not heard anything with regard to the allotment of plots and no steps were taken to allot the plots in consequence of the aforesaid advertisement, the Department issued yet another similar advertisement and invited applications for more plots that had become available subsequently. This alarmed him and he was, thus, constrained to address letter dated May 25, 1990 bringing to the notice of the Managing Director that as per earlier advertisement, he had applied for the allotment of plot and had even deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000.00 as earnest money and, therefore, he should have been allotted a plot and in any case once there was a fresh advertisement seeking applications for allotment of plots, he would be considered for the allotment of plots from the plots which were made available in consequence of second advertisement. In as much as he did not hear anything from the department, he went abroad in Aug. 1990 after executing a general power of attorney in favour of his father on Jan. 31, 1990 who was the pursue the matter in his absence. It is after the petitioner had left India and had gone abroad that letter dated Oct. 26, 1990 was received which required the petitioner to be interviewed on Nov. 7, 1990 at 9.00 A.M. in the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre Mohali. In the circumstances aforesaid the petitioner could not make himself available for interview and only father of petitioner who was also his attorney could pursue the matter. The father of the petitioner had taken with him in the said interview a competent engineer who could explain the various details of the project. The aforesaid arrangement was necessitated on account of absence of the petitioner from India but the same was not to the liking of the respondents and, therefore, the father of the petitioner who had taken with him an engineer was refused to be interviewed. In the circumstances aforesaid, the name of petitioner was struck off from the eligible candidates who had applied from the allotment industrial plot.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the action of respondents in refusing him the plot and the Division Bench at the time of motion hearing while admitting the petition clearly observed that one plot of the category applied for by the petitioner through his general attorney shall be kept reserved to accommodate the petitioner in case the petition succeeds. This order was passed on Dec. 21,1990.

(3.) The respondents have been served but neither any written statement has been filed on their behalf nor any one has appeared to contest the claim of petitioner.