PARKASH DHIMAN Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om Parkash Dhiman and three others, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents 1 and 2 to put their names in the draw of lots for allotment of built -up industrial sheds at village Hallo Majra.

(2.) Brief facts, as projected in the petition, reveal that the 2nd respondent advertised in the news paper in the month of December, 1991, inviting applications for allotment of built -up industrial sheds located in village Hallo Majra in Union Territory, Chandigarh. The last date for receipt of the applications was fixed as 20.1.1992. In the advertisement, Annexure P -1, the IInd respondent has mentioned as under; -

(3.) All the petitioners are said to have obtained application forms alongwith terms and conditions. They applied for Type 'A' built -up industrial shed, tentative costs whereof was assessed at Rs. 2 lac. As per the terms and conditions incorporated in Clause (v), an applicant was required to annex a draft of Rs. 20,000/ -, being 10% of the total price on account of earnest money. Terms and conditions for the allotment of built -up industrial sheds have been placed on record as Annexure P -2. It is further the case of the petitioners that under the scheme of Nucleus Centre, only 29 small scale/village industries were approved. A list of 29 industries has been attached to the petition as Annexure P -3. AH the petitioners alongwith their application forms submitted the project report of the unit to be set up in case shed is allotted, which comes within the scheme. Having received no letter, either of allotment or of draw of lots, petitioner No. 1 addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent. In response thereof, he received registered letter dt. 5.5.1993 alongwith a cheque amounting to Rs. 21,107/ -, which is stated to be refund/return of the earnest money. The petitioners then approached the IInd respondent for the desire relief but when the said respondent did not respond to the request made by the petitioners, present petition for the relief, as noted above, was filed.