JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allotted an industrial plot at Faridabad as of right is the only question which arises for adjudication in this petition filed by M/s G.S. Engineering Works for quashing the order dated 5.11.1998 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana Town and Country Planning Department.
2. The facts necessary for deciding the above noted question are that the project report submitted by the petitioner for setting up an industrial unit in Faridabad appears to have been approved by the Director of Industries, Haryana some time in 1982 and on his recommendation, the Government appears to have agreed to allot an industrial plot measuring 1/4 acre. However, the letter of allotment could not be issued to the petitioner because the land out of which the plot was to be allotted was under dispute. After about 2 years, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (hereinafter described as ‘the Estate Officer’) wrote memo dated 26.5.1984 (Annexure P.3) to the petitioner requiring it to apply afresh for allotment of plot in Section 58, Faridabad so that the Screening Committee may take appropriate decision. It is not clear from the record whether the petitioner submitted any application in pursuance of the said memo but after a lull of one decade, the Estate of Officer issued memo No. 1109 dated 1.7.1994 and revived the offer of allotment of the plot to the petitioner. A perusal of the photostat copy of the said memo which was produced by the learned counsel during the course of arguments, shows that the petitioner was called upon to submit letter of acceptance to the Estate Officer within 30 days with clear stipulation that its failure to do so would lead to the presumption that the offer is’ not acceptable to it. For reference purposes, memo No. l109 dated 1.7.1994 is reproduced below:-
From
The Estate Officer,
HUDA, Faridabad.
To
M/s G.S. Engineering Works,
Kothi No. 841, Sector 7-C,
Faridabad.
Memo No. 1109 Dated: 1.7.1994 Subject : Offer of alternative industrial plot in Sector 59, Faridabad in lieu of disputed plots. HUDA has decided to offer an alternative plot in Sector 59 measuring 1/4 acre in the Urban Estate, Faridabad in lieu of industrial plot measuring 1/4 acre earlier earmarked to you vide letter No. 13565 dated 1.6.1982 (being disputed plot) on the following terms and conditions:- (1) The rate of cost of the plot in new Sector 59, Faridabad would be charged @ Rs.425/- per square metre.
(2) In case this offer of alternative plot is acceptable to you, you may submit letter of acceptance to the Estate Officer, Faridabad within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. In case no reply is received within stipulated period, it will, be presumed that plot offered is not acceptable and payment already made will be refused. No claim for allotment of any plot would be entertained thereafter.
(3) It is also made clear that no conditional acceptance will be entertained.
You are requested to send your consent in this regard within the stipulated period to facilitate further action.
Sd/-
Estate Officer,
HUDA, Faridabad.
*(Plot No. would be allotted after draw of lots).
It appears from the record that notice was also got published by the Estate Officer in the newspapers dated 23.3.1995 giving an opportunity to the parsons like the petitioner to submit their acceptance. The petitioner neither communicated its acceptance nor it deposited the amount in terms of the above extracted memo. Consequently, the Estate Officer, vide memo Annexure P.4 dated 21.4.1997, cancelled the offer of allotment made earlier to the petitioner. That decision was set aside by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator). The Appellate Authority directed that the petitioner be allotted a plot of the size of 1/4 acre in Sector 59 or any other industrial sectors at Faridabad at the rate of Rs.425/- per square meter. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Estate Officer filed revision petition before the State Government. By the impugned order, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, exercising the revisional power vested in the State Government held that there is no valid reason to revive the offer of allotment made to the petitioner.
3. Shri I.K. Mehta, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the Revisional Authority by arguing that the decision of the Estate Officer to cancel the offer of allotment made to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and capricious. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be arbitrarily deprived of the valuable right acquired on the basis of the direction given by the government to the authorities of H.U.D.A. to allot to it an industrial plot at Faridabad. Shri Mehta further submitted that the action of the respondents to offer allotment of plot to the petitioner in an area which was under dispute was itself arbitrary and in any case, after having made an offer to allot alternative plot, the respondents cannot refuse to issue letter of allotment on the pretext that the petitioner did not communicate its acceptance in response to the memo dated 1.7.1994 or that he did not deposit the exorbitant price fixed by the respondent. Still further, he argued that the decision of the Estate Officer to cancel the offer made to the petitioner vide memo dated 1.7.1994 should be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice because no action-oriented notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned decision was taken. Shri Mehta invited our attention to the documents filed with the petition to show that the petitioner had repeatedly requested the Estate Officer to disclose the plot number and the amount required to be deposited but the latter did not pay any heed to its request and arbitrarily cancelled the offer of allotment. Learned counsel also read out the contents of the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad to substantiate his assertion that after receiving the memo dated 1.7.1994, the petitioner was in constant touch with the Estate Officer in the context of offer of alternative plot. Shri Mehta assailed the order of the revisional authority by arguing that has upset the order passed by the Appellate Authority without any cogent reason.
4. In our opinion, none of the submissions made by Shri Mehta merits acceptance. A conjoint reading of the memos dated 1.7.1994 and 21.4.1997 written by the Estate Officer, the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and other documents annexed with the writ petition shows that after the issuance of memo dated 26.5.1984 by the Estate Officer, Faridabad requiring it to apply afresh for allotment of plot in Sector 58, Faridabad, the petitioner maintained total silence for 10 years and did not bother to contact the Estate Officer to find out the fate of the said offer. The memo dated 1.7.1994 written by the Estate Officer giving another offer to the petitioner came as a blessing in disguise but it failed to encash this opportunity as well, in as much as, it did not communicate acceptance of the offer to the Estate Officer The very fact that even after the publication of notice in the newspapers dated 23.3.1995, the petitioner did not get in touch with the Estate Officer to communicate its acceptance of offer afforded ample justification to the Estate Officer to cancel the offer.
5. A bare reading of the appellate order shows that the Administrator had nullified the order passed by the Estate Officer without assigning cogent reasons. Rather, it had concocted grounds to justify its direction for allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner as is evident from the following observation made by it in the order dated 6.5.1998:
“I have heard both the parties and gone through the records carefully. From the perusal of records it is revealed that the offer of allotment letter was issued to the appellant vide respondent’s letter No. 1109 dated 1.7.1994 for the allotment of Industrial Plot in Sector 59, Faridabad. But there is no plot number mentioned in the letter. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the appellant could not send any acceptance letter. Now a second chance may be given to the appellant. As such the order/letter No. 1109 dated 1.7.1994 may be treated as afresh.”
6. In our view, the Appellate Authority clearly exceeded its brief when it held that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to get the plot. The observations made by it suggesting that the petitioner could not send the acceptance letter due to the unavoidable circumstances were clearly misleading and appears to have been made due to extraneous reasons because the petitioner did not give any cogent explanation for its failure to communicate acceptance of offer made by the Estate Officer. The absence of the number of plot in the memo dated 1.7.1994 was wholly inconsequential because in the said memo itself, the Estate Officer had made it clear that the number of plot would be allotted after draw of lots.
7. The Revisional Authority, quashed the appellate order by observing that there was no justification to give offer of alternative plot to the petitioner in 1994 and in any case its failure to accept the offer provided ample justification for withdrawal thereof by the Estate Officer. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Revisional Authority reads as under:
“I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is clear that vide letter dated 1.6.1982, a decision was taken by the Government to allot an industrial plot measuring 1/4 acre at Faridabad to M/s G.S. Engg. Works, but no allotment letter has even been issued to the applicant. From the perusal of the record, it is also clear that the applicant was asked to appear before the screening committee on 21.11.1984, alongwith bank draft of Rs. 10,904/- but the applicant neither appeared before the screening committee nor did he deposit the earnest money. Hence, no industrial plot was ever allotted to the party as a result of the exercise initiated in 1982. It is surprising la note that the party was again considered for allotment of an alternative Industrial Plot in 1994 in Sector 59, Faridabad. It was mentioned in the Estate Officer letter No. 1109 dated 1.7.1994 than in lieu of earlier disputed plot the new offer was made to the party on fulfilment of certain terms and conditions. As per the record available in the case, there was no offer of allotment in the final instance. Hence how the plot was categorised as disputed is difficult to understand. It seems gross irregularity has been committed by the Estate Officer, Faridabad in this regard. Even the alternative plot was not accepted by the party and he never responded to the offer of the Estate Officer. In the given circumstances, I find no reason as to why the party should be given more chance to make up his mind. I find the Administrator, in her order, has not examined all the relevant facts and arrived at a conclusion without mentioning any reasons thereof. In the circumstances, the Revision Petition is accepted and consequently the order of Administrator Faridabad dated 6.5.1998 is set aside.”
We fully endorse the reasons recorded by the Revisional Authority for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8. Shri Mehta’s submission that the Court should adopt a compassionate approach towards the petitioner because it has been waiting for allotment of plot for the last almost 17 years merits rejection on the following grounds:
(a) the petitioner did not avail the chance of seeking allotment of plot by submitting application in pursuance of memos dated 26.5.1984 and 1.7.1994. Even after publication of the notices in the newspapers, it did not deposit the requisite amount and communicate the acceptance of offer;
(b) the project report submitted in 1982 cannot possibly be made basis to justify allotment of industrial plot in 1999; and
(c) the policy framed by the government of Haryana and the respondent-H.U.D.A. for allotment of residential, commercial and industrial plots by draw of lots has been superseded and the new policy framed in 1996-97 provides for allotment of industrial plots only by auction. This court has taken cognizance of the revised policy while deciding C.W.P. No.8905 of 1997 – The Express Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, Panchkula and two Ors. v. State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary and Ors., decided on 3.10.1997 along with 34 other petitions and rejected the argument that the new policy is ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of that decision, a writ of mandamus cannot now be issued directing the respondents to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner on the basis of application submitted by it in 1982.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.