KAMALAWATI SWARNKAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record of the case.

(2.) ON 5.11.2001, Haryana Urban Development, Authority (For short "HUDA"), invited applications for allotment of freehold residential plots in Sector 43, Gurgaon, under various categories. The advertisement (Annexure P-1) stipulates that booking for general and other categories opens on 9.11.2001 and closes on 10.12.2001. For defence Personnel, Ex-servicemen, Para-military Forces and NRIs, the last date was 10.1.2002. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 43 in the General Category on 7.12.2001. He also deposited earnest money at the rate of 10% of the total tentative costs of Rs. 1,53,926/-, by way of a demand draft on 9.12.2001. On the same day, i.e. 9.12.2001, by advertisement Annexure P-4, HUDA extended the date for making the applications upto 10.10.2002. Thereafter, it was further extended to 31.1.2002.

(3.) WE have anxiously considered the submission made by the learned counsel, but find the same to be wholly devoid of any merit. Mere extension in the date for making the applications, would not infringe any legal right of the petitioner. At best, the petitioner has a right to be considered along with other eligible candidates and that right of the petitioner was not taken away. Merely because the chances of allotment of a plot had been reduced, would not give rise to infringement of any legal right of the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel, in our view, is per incuriam. A Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, Vol. LXXXI-1979 P.L.R. 413, which had a direct bearing on the decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in Royal Bank Employees Corporation case (supra). In the case before the learned Single Judge the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had issued an advertisement inviting applications from the cooperative societies for allotment of plots. The last date for inviting applications, according to the advertisement, was 31.10.1990. The HUDA, thereafter, issued another advertisement on 16.12.1990 extending the last date for receipt of applications upto 15.2.1991. This made a number of other societies also eligible for applying in response to the original advertisement, the closing date whereof had already expired on 31.10.1990. The HUDA in the reply admitted the factual position. It was also stated that the date was extended for the benefit of all other societies who could not apply earlier. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings Agnihotri, J. has observed as follows :-