SUBHASH CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to order dated 3.5.1993 whereby offer for allotment of industrial shed made to the petitioner has been withdrawn on the ground that he failed to send his consent to the revised rate. In the written statement, respondents have defended the action by saying that price of the industrial shed was revised which was uniformly applicable to all the applicants but the petitioner despite the askings died not give his consent to the revised rate though he remitted the additional amount. Respondents have also submitted that the price of the shed has rightly been fixed at Rs. 2,18,000/- which is the current price of the shed earmarked for the petitioner.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. Petitioner in response to advertisement for allotment of Industrial shed in Industrial Area, Faridabad applied for 'B' type shed and along with his application sent a demand draft for Rs. 17,600/-. Respondent No. 2, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short the Corporation) after having satisfied itself of the genuineness of the project proposed to be set up by the petitioner, decided to allot the shed and accordingly asked him to remit a sum of Rs. 17,750/- within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of provisional letter of allotment. Petitioner was also asked to get Term Loan requirement sanctioned from the Haryana Financial Corporation or from a nationalised bank within a period of 180 days from the date of provisional letter of allotment, failing which the offer was to lapse. Petitioner in compliance to this direction, deposited Rs. 17,750/- thus making it a total of Rs. 35,150/- being 35 per cent of the total cost. Petitioner also applied to the Haryana Financial Corporation for sanctioning of loan of Rs. 3.50 lacs. His application was duly processed and he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,32,000/-. Petitioner duly informed the Corporation about the said sanction. On receipt of communication in this regard, the Corporation vide letter dated 5.10.1991 informed the petitioner that his name has been approved for allotment of shed, Type-A at Faridabad and the loan sanctioned letter has been accepted as compliance of condition of provisional letter of allotment. Petitioner was further informed that the allotment of the shed would be made after completion of work of the sheds. Petitioner sent reminders on 6.12.1990 and 7.3.1991 in which he stated that he be allotted the shed as he has got financial assistance from the Haryana Financial Corporation, besides spending huge amount towards placing of orders for plant and machinery to be installed in the shed. Again vide letter dated 16.2.1992 petitioner enquired as to why allotment and possession of the shed is not being given to him though construction of the sheds has been completed. Corporation vide letter dated 29.4.1991 informed the petitioner that the Corporation has already completed construction and the possession of the shed would be handed over to him within a fortnight or so. Instead of delivering possession of industrial shed, after almost one year i.e. on 8.6.1992, the petitioner was told that the rates of sheds Type-A have been revised from Rs. 1.25 lac to Rs. 1.50 lac and he should remit a sum of Rs. 17,150/- towards balance 35% cost of shed along with consent to the revised rate. Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 17,150/- as asked but was not delivered possession. The Corporation vide letter dated 24.11.1992 informed the petitioner that the Corporation has not received the consent of the petitioner to the revised rate and now the rate of shed type-A in Industrial Area, Faridabad is Rs. 2.18 lacs and that he should remit the balance cost of shed at this rate along with acceptance of that rate so that the revised letter of allotment could be issued to him. It appears that there was some correspondence in regard to the action of the Corporation in asking the petitioner to pay the revised cost of Rs. 2.18 lacs but nothing seems to have come out of this and finally, vide letter dated 3.5.1993 offer for allotment of industrial shed has been withdrawn. This action of the Corporation is wholly arbitrary, particularly when petitioner was told on 5.10.1990 that his name has been approved for allotment and the loan sanction letter has been accepted as compliance of conditions of allotment and again on 29.4.1991 he was informed that possession of shed would be handed over to him within a fortnight or so. No justification or explanation has been given in the written statement as to why possession of the shed was not delivered to the petitioner within that period or immediately thereafter. At no stage the petitioner was at fault and therefore, there was no justification for the Corporation to revise the cost of land from Rs. 1.25 lacs to Rs. 1.50 lacs, thereby asking the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs. 17,150/-. Since the petitioner did not raise any objection to this revised rate and remitted Rs. 17,150/- as asked for, the Corporation ought to have delivered possession of the shed to the petitioner immediately on deposit of the amount. It is too technical for the Corporation to say that the petitioner did not send his consent along with the remittance of the amount. It may be noticed that on 29.4.1991 when the petitioner was told that possession of the shed would be delivered to him within a fortnight the petitioner had already fulfilled the requisite conditions. In the petition, petitioner has given instances where the Corporation has allotted sheds type-A to various persons at the price of Rs. 1.5 lac though they had applied many years after the petitioner had applied. The Corporation in its additional affidavit has admitted that sheds have been allotted to some of the persons but they have tried to distinguish their case from the case of the petitioner by saying that in the case of the petitioner the offer was made in January, 1989 and formalities were to be completed within 180 days which were not completed by the petitioner upto July, 1989, but in fact were completed in September, 1989, i.e. after the completion of stipulated period. While giving this justification, the Corporation has failed to notice that vide its letter dated 5.10.1990 the Corporation not only approved the name of the petitioner for allotment of shed type-A but also accepted the loan sanction letter as compliance of condition of offer letter dated 2.1.1989. Again on 29.4.191 the petitioner was told that the possession of the shed would be delivered to him within a fortnight. The reasons given by the Corporation for distinguishing the case of the petitioner from others cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, I am of the view that letter, Annexure P-20, cannot be sustained being arbitrary and thus, has to be quashed.

(3.) Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and letter dated 3.5.1993, Annexure P-20 quashed. Respondents are directed to allot industrial shed No. 14 type-A at Industrial Area, Faridabad for a price of Rs. 1.5 lac and deliver possession thereof to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The sum of Rs. 42,300/- which admittedly the petitioner has paid till date shall be adjusted and the balance amounts shall be recovered in accordance with terms and conditions of allotment. Petitioner is also entitled to costs of this petition as he has been made to come to this Court and incur expenses towards litigation for no fault of his. Costs are assessed at Rs. 5000/-.