SURJIT KUMAR SINGLA Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to deliver possession of the industrial plot No. 727 to the petitioner.

(2.) In the year 1977, the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh decided to invite applications for allotment of industrial plots at concessional price of Rs. 15/- per square yard for 99 years on lease hold basis. For this purpose, advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The Petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and also submitted a detailed scheme for manufacture of conduit pipe (20 C) and electrical fitting pipe along with bends and sockets. Vide Annexure P.3 dated 1.6.1978, the District Industries Officer asked the petitioner to appear before him for verification of the facts given in the application. Later on, the Administration decided to increase the price of the land from Rs. 15/- per square yard to Rs. 35/- per square yard. Vide letter Annexure P.4 dated 16.3.1979, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh asked the petitioner to give his consent for allotment of land at the enhanced cost. In reply, the petitioner wrote letter Annexure P.5 and deposited additional earnest money for allotment of one kanal plot. Vide Annexure P.6, the Estate Officer conveyed the Administration's decision to consider the petitioner's case for allotment of industrial plot of 10 marlas and he was asked to furnish some documents including an affidavit, which he immediately did. After about 3 years the respondent No. 4 wrote letter Annexure P. 13 to the Finance Secretary that in view of the negative recommendations of the Screening Committee, Letter of Intent for Plot No. 727, Phase II has not been issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations Annexure P. 14 dated 20.7.1982, P.15 dated 16.12.1982, P.16 dated 26.12.1982 P.24 dated 26.1.1990, P.24-A dated nil, P.26 dated 22.12.1991, P.27 dated 5.3.1992, P.28 dated 12.7.1992, P.29 dated 7.11.1992 and P.30 dated 4.4.1993. In response to his representation dated 26.12.1985 the Estate Officer wrote letter Annexure P. 17 dated 11.11.1986 to the petitioner requiring him to supply a copy of the project report to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Alongwith letter Annexure P. 19 dated 12.1.1987, the Estate Officer forwarded a copy of the said Project Report to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Vide Annexure P.24/B dated 3.1.1991, the respondent No. 4 asked the General Manager to send his comments. Thereafter, letter Annexure No. P.25 dated 18.2.1991 was written by the General Manager, District Industries Centre to the petitioner for the latter's personal appearance. However, in spite of this long drawn correspondence, the allotment of plot was not made to the petitioner and this is the reason why he invoked the writ jurisdiction by filing this petition on 18.5.1994. His contention is that the decision of the respondents not to make allotment of plot to him is vitiated by arbitrariness and discrimination because other similarly situated persons have not only been allotted industrial plots but they have also got possession and are doing business by setting up factories/industries.'

(3.) The respondents have objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. On merits, they have justified their decision not to allot plot to the petitioner on the ground that the Screening Committee did not recommend allotment of plot to him.