M/S. NORTHLAND RUBBER MILLS, RAI (SONEPAT) Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PANCHKULA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 12.1.2017 (Annexure P-26) issued by respondent No. 3 vide which its request for refund of 10% of the plot cost had been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to refund the 10% of the plot cost, i.e. Rs. 1,24,76,701/- plus interest and further pay an amount of Rs. 3,34,64,482/- paid by the petitioner to the bank as interest component from 26.4.2011 till 5.1.2014 for availing the Cash Credit Limit for making the payment of instalments to the respondents.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. In the year 2011, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in short "the Corporation") framed an industrial policy for the allotment of industrial plots in the State of Haryana. In response thereto, the petitioner applied for the allotment of an industrial plot at Barhi, Phase III, vide application dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) along with various documents and the amount as required. The Corporation vide letter dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) sought certain further information which was duly replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure P-3). Vide letter dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P-4), the Corporation called the petitioner for a meeting along with the relevant documents and vide letter dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P-5) informed the petitioner regarding the allotment of an industrial plot in Phase III, Barhi measuring 4 acres at the tentative rate of Rs. 5500/- per square meters for setting up an industrial project of manufacturing of conveyor belts. The petitioner vide letter dated 5.10.2011 (Annexure P-6) requested the Corporation to allot a plot measuring 51/2 acres instead of 4 acres and the Corporation vide letter dated 9.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) accepted the request of the petitioner for the allotment of land measuring 51/2 acres. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted the requisite undertaking dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-8) to the Corporation who issued a Regular Letter of Allotment dated 5.1.2012 (Annexure P-9) without offer of possession (under EMP-2011). The Corporation vide letter dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure P-10) directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.05 crores towards 15% of the cost of the plot along with interest for the delayed payment which was deposited by the petitioner vide letter dated 2.3.2012 (Annexure P-11) and further amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- was deposited by the petitioner towards 14% interest vide letter dated 3.2.2012 (Annexure P-12). Thereafter, the petitioner was called for execution of the agreement vide letter dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-13) and the agreement dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) was executed between the Corporation and the petitioner regarding the said plot. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.2.2014 (Annexure P-15) requested the Corporation for the allotment of a plot measuring 4 acres instead of already allotted plot measuring 51/2 acres. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the Corporation vide letter dated 29.8.2014 (Annexure P-16). The Corporation vide letter dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure P-17) directed the petitioner to appear before the Estate Management Committee (EMC) on 28.10.2015 at 11.30 AM and the petitioner vide letter dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure P-17) wished to appear before the EMC. The petitioner vide letter dated 4.11.2015 (Annexure P-18) requested the Corporation not to change the location of the plot. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.4.2016 (Annexure P-19) to respondent No. 1 for refund of Rs. 7,67,96,313/- along with interest particularly when there was no offer of possession. The Corporation vide letter dated 11.5.2016 (Annexure P-20) asked the petitioner to give its consent for offer of possession who vide letter dated 25.5.2016 (Annexure P-21) requested the Corporation to refund the amount. The Corporation in its 333rd meeting amended the EMP-2015 on 13.7.2016 (Annexure P-22). The petitioner vide letter dated 14.7.2016 followed by various reminders (Annexure P-23 Colly) requested the Corporation to refund the amount in terms of the revised EMP without any deduction. As per the statement of account dated 6.9.2016 (Annexure P-24), the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 6,43,19.612/- as against the amount of Rs. 7,67,96,313/-. The petitioner vide letters dated 8.9.2016 and 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-25 Colly) requested the Corporation to release the amount of Rs. 1,24,76,701/- wrongly deducted from the said amount. The Corporation vide letter dated 12.1.2017 (Annexure P-26) rejected the request of the petitioner for refund of 10% of the plot cost. The petitioner vide representation dated 31.1.2017 (Annexure P-27) requested the Corporation to review its decision and to refund 10% of the plot cost, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioner sought some information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 17.3.2017 (Annexure P-28) and the nothings, Annexure P-29, were supplied to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing a written statement. It has been pleaded therein that the plot was not offered to the petitioner due to non-availability of infrastructure in Phase III, Barhi. However, the said plot was allotted to the petitioner on the submission of an undertaking to take the physical possession of the plot on 'as is where is basis'. The petitioner approached the Corporation to surrender the said plot vide letter, Annexure P-19 on account of non-offer of possession whereas as per the site report dated 4.4.2016, basic infrastructure facilities were completed at the site to the extent of 90% and only 10% were to be completed. Further, the petitioner did not agree to accept the offer of possession which was confirmed vide letter dated 25.5.2016 (Annexure P- 21). It was also pleaded therein that the request of the petitioner for non-deduction of 10% of the plot cost for surrender of plot after approval from change of plot with reduced size was examined by the Corporation and it was observed that EMP-2015 was silent on this aspect. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for refund of 10% of the plot cost was rejected by the Corporation. The other averments made in the writ petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.