Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 1 July, 2010
Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29532 of 2010

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Agrawal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Manish Kumar Nigam,Saurabh Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Akhileshwar Singh,Anuj P. Singh

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
19th February, 2010 by which order the petitioner’s representation has been
decided in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23rd November, 2009
passed in Writ Petition No.61526 of 2009.

The petitioner had made an application for allotment in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 22nd April, 2007 and had also submitted a bank draft of
Rs.4,60,000/- which was got received on 1st May, 2007. Subsequently a
decision was taken by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
rescind the allotment scheme itself. The earnest money submitted by bank
draft was returned vide letter dated 1.10.2008, which was returned back by the
petitioner and again by special messenger the same was sent to the petitioner
on 20th August, 2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the scheme was
rescinded, the petitioner parted of with the money and he is at least entitled
for some interest.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that bank draft was never
encashed by the Corporation, hence there is no entitlement of the petitioner to
claim interest. He further submits that in the general conditions, there is no
such condition that after receiving a bank draft the petitioner is entitled for
any interest if some delay occurs in taking decision on the application.

We have perused the general conditions for allotment of the plot, which has
been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The bank draft having not been
encahsed by the Corporation and the petitioner having never been allotted any
plot, we do not see any substance in the submission of the petitioner that he is
entitled for interest. The scheme having itself been given up, the petitioner’s
bank draft was rightly returned. We do not see any error in the order dated
19th February, 2010.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.7.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.147 seconds.