{"id":258348,"date":"2009-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-23T12:36:00","modified_gmt":"2017-01-23T07:06:00","slug":"babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009<\/div>\n
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                  Civil Writ Petition No.2677 of 2008\n                 Date of decision: 12th November, 2009\n\n\nBabbar Bhan and another\n                                                           ... Petitioners\n                                Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                         ... Respondents\n\n                  Civil Writ Petition No.3870 of 2008\n\nSurinder Kumar Sharma and others\n                                                           ... Petitioners\n                                Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                         ... Respondents\n\n                  Civil Writ Petition No.3915 of 2008\n\nKeshav Kumar Bansal\n                                                            ... Petitioner\n                                Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                         ... Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.\n\n            Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana\n            for the State.\n            Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with\n            Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.\n            Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.\n            Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for respondents No. 15 and 25.\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                        2\n\n\n               Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate\n               for respondents No.5 and 31.\n               Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 34.\n               Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.9.\n               Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate\n               for respondents No.10 and 18.\n               Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate for respondents No.11 and 23.\n               Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.16.\n               Ms. Sandeepa Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.19.\n               Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for respondents No.20 and 33.\n               Mr. Haripal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.22.\n               Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for respondent No.35.\n               Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate\n               for respondents No.17 & 40 to 42.\n               Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate for\n               Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate.\n               Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No.8.\n\n\nNotes: 1.      Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to\n               see the judgment?\n         2.    To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n         3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\nKANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
               Three writ petitions filed in this Court, question the allotment<\/p>\n
of industrial plots in Industrial Estate, Bhiwani to the successful allottees,<\/p>\n
on the ground that the same are vitiated by nepotism, favouritism and<\/p>\n
total lack of a fair and transparent procedure that could ensure fairness<\/p>\n
and objectivity. It is alleged that the successful allottees are<\/p>\n
relatives\/friends and prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of politicians and bureaucrats. They had,<\/p>\n
therefore, succeeded in getting the allotment, not on the basis of merit<\/p>\n
but because authorities allowed them to steal march over the better<\/p>\n
candidates available. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                        3<\/p>\n
distribution of largesse, as the recipient of plots were less meritorious and<\/p>\n
no comparative criteria to evaluate claim of all those, who applied for<\/p>\n
allotment of plots, has been followed. It is prayed that since the entire<\/p>\n
allotment stands vitiated, the allotment letters issued be cancelled and an<\/p>\n
inquiry be ordered.\n<\/p>\n
               Petitioners’ challenge to the mode of allotment, questioning<\/p>\n
the procedure followed by the authorities, makes it imperative for us to<\/p>\n
first notice the broad parameters laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
regarding distribution of public property to private individuals, so that on<\/p>\n
the touchstone of the same, we are able to evaluate the allotment of plots<\/p>\n
made, in the factual backdrop pleaded in these writ petitions.<\/p>\n
               The principle that the government while entering into<\/p>\n
contracts or distributing public largesse cannot act arbitrarily has been<\/p>\n
emphasized by the Supreme Court in a number of landmark decisions<\/p>\n
such as ‘Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority<\/p>\n
of India<\/a>‘ (1979) 3 SCC 489 and ‘Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State<\/p>\n
of J & K<\/a>‘ (1980) 4 SCC 1. After discussing the entire conspectus of law,<\/p>\n
it was held by the Supreme Court in ‘New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of<\/p>\n
India<\/a>‘, (1995) 1 SCC 478 that<\/p>\n
               “7. At the outset, we may indicate that in the matter of
\n       entering into a contract, the State does not stand on the
\n       same footing as a private person who is free to enter into a
\n       contract with any person he likes. The State, in exercise of its
\n       various functions, is governed by the mandate of Article 14<\/a> of
\n       the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in State action
\n       and requires the State to act fairly and reasonably. The
\n       action of the State in the matter of award of a contract has to
\n       satisfy this criterion. Moreover a contract would either involve
\n       expenditure from the State exchequer or augmentation of
\n       public revenue and consequently the discretion in the matter
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                         4<\/p>\n
       of selection of the person for award of the contract has to be
\n       exercised keeping in view the public interest involved in such
\n       selection. The decisions of this Court, therefore, insist that
\n       while dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or
\n       entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or
\n       granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act
\n       arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal
\n       with any person it pleases, but its action must be in
\n       conformity with the standards or norms which are not
\n       arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. It is, however, recognised
\n       that certain measure of “free play in the joints” is necessary
\n       for an administrative body functioning in an administrative
\n       sphere.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
               It has been held in the case of ‘Sachidananda Pandey v.<\/p>\n
State of W.B<\/a>.’ (1987) 2 SCC 295 that:\n<\/p>\n
               “On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the
\n       bar the following propositions may be taken as well
\n       established: State-owned or public-owned property is not to
\n       be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive.
\n       Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public
\n       opinion is the paramount consideration. One of the methods
\n       of securing the public interest, when it is considered
\n       necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by
\n       public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the
\n       ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be
\n       situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating
\n       departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure
\n       must be rational          and should not be suggestive         of
\n       discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important
\n       as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an
\n       appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                       5<\/p>\n
               Similar observation have been made in the case of ‘Haji<\/p>\n
T.M. Hassan v. Kerala Financial Corporation<\/a>‘ (1988) 1 SCC 166<\/p>\n
wherein it was held that:\n<\/p>\n
               “The public property owned by the State or by any
\n       instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public
\n       auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting
\n       upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the
\n       property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the
\n       State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act
\n       fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings
\n       should be aboveboard. Their transactions should be without
\n       aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of
\n       discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives
\n       an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily
\n       these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to
\n       public auction or sale by tenders.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that<\/p>\n
whenever public property is distributed the same has to be ordinarily<\/p>\n
done by public auction or inviting tenders. The deviance from this rule<\/p>\n
ipso facto is not illegal but nothing should be done which gives as an<\/p>\n
appearance of bias or nepotism. As a matter of fact it has been held in<\/p>\n
the case of ‘Netai Bag v. State of W.B<\/a>.’, (2000) 8 SCC 262 that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that
\n       generally when any State land is intended to be transferred
\n       or the State largesse decided to be conferred, resort should
\n       be had to public auction or transfer by way of inviting tenders
\n       from the people. That would be a sure method of
\n       guaranteeing compliance with the mandate of Article 14<\/a> of
\n       the Constitution. Non-floating of tenders or not holding of
\n       public auction would not in all cases be deemed to be the
\n       result of the exercise of the executive power in an arbitrary
\n       manner. Making an exception to the general rule could be
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                           6<\/p>\n
       justified by the State executive, if challenged in appropriate
\n       proceedings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The principles of law propounded above by the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court can be summed up as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (a)     The State ought to dispose of public property by way of<\/p>\n
               public auction or by inviting tenders as an ordinary rule. But<\/p>\n
               if the State chooses to act otherwise, it has to act fairly and<\/p>\n
               reasonably       and   action     of   the   State   must   exclude<\/p>\n
               arbitrariness;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b)     In case the State opts to make an exception to the general<\/p>\n
               rule of disposing the property through public auction or by<\/p>\n
               inviting tenders, the procedure followed should be so<\/p>\n
               transparent that it overrules an impression of bias,<\/p>\n
               favourtism or nepotism;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (c)     In all the cases, where the general rule (sale through public<\/p>\n
               auction or by invitation of tenders) is not adhered to, it must<\/p>\n
               be in consonance with the criterion, which satisfies the<\/p>\n
               expectation that the same is fair and reasonable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (d)     The criteria should be pre-determined and published to rule<\/p>\n
               out the allegation of any bias.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               It is now time to state the facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Civil Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2008 has been filed by two<\/p>\n
advocates. They have filed this writ petition purportedly in public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Civil Writ Petition No.3870 of 2008 has been filed by Surinder Kumar<\/p>\n
Sharma, Smt.Sarita Sharma and Ajay Kumar. They have pleaded that<\/p>\n
they are industrialists in their own right, having requisite experience and
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                         7<\/p>\n
had applied for the allotment of \u00bd acre plots by depositing the earnest<\/p>\n
money, but they could not succeed as respondents No.5 to 30 were well<\/p>\n
connected and had a say in the corridors of power. Civil Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
3915 of 2008 has been filed by Keshav Kumar Bansal. He is an<\/p>\n
industrialist, who appears to have applied for allotment of a 2 acre plot.<\/p>\n
His grievance and prayer for seeking cancellation of allotment of plots to<\/p>\n
the successful allottees is no different from that of the petitioners in other<\/p>\n
two writ petitions. For facility of reference, facts are gathered from Civil<\/p>\n
Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2008, as on all important aspects, i.e., facts and<\/p>\n
law, submissions made, all the three writ petitions are similar.<\/p>\n
               Haryana Urban Development Authority published a brochure<\/p>\n
offering freehold industrial plots at Roj-Ka-Meo, Hathin, Bahadurgarh,<\/p>\n
Hisar and Bhiwani. The booking had to commence from 3rd August, 2007.<\/p>\n
Since all the three writ petitions have assailed the allotment of plots at<\/p>\n
Bhiwani only, no reference is required to be made qua other Industrial<\/p>\n
Estates. As per the chart, which formed part of the brochure, one plot of 2<\/p>\n
acre, 22 plots of \u00bd acre and 4 plots of \u00bc acre were to be allotted at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.770\/- per square meter. For 2 acre plot Rs.6,31,400\/-, for \u00bd<\/p>\n
acre plot Rs.1,57,850\/- and for \u00bc acre plot Rs.78,925\/- were to be<\/p>\n
deposited as earnest money along with the application form.<\/p>\n
               The brochure describes Bhiwani as a fast developing<\/p>\n
industrial commercial town of Haryana, known for its temples and textiles.<\/p>\n
Bhiwani, being the district headquarter, is also headquarter of Haryana<\/p>\n
School Education Board. It is situated at a distance of 125 kms from<\/p>\n
Delhi and 50 kms from Rohtak and is equipped with all basic<\/p>\n
infrastructure facilities and public utilities like, General Hospital and a Mini<\/p>\n
Secretariat. The close proximity of Bhiwani to Delhi had enhanced the<\/p>\n
value of plots available.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                               8<\/p>\n
               The procedure for allotment of plots published in the<\/p>\n
brochure reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “Mere     submission      of   an     application   would   not
\n       necessarily entitle an application for allotment. Allotment of
\n       plot will be after due assessment of the application\/project
\n       report & on basis of individual merits\/financial capabilities of
\n       entrepreneurs.\n<\/p>\n
               The applications received shall be scrutinized and
\n       applicants interviewed by the Allotment Committee, and
\n       thereafter, the allotment shall be made in favour of the
\n       recommendee with approval of the Competent Authority.”<\/p>\n
               According to the brochure, preference was to be given to the<\/p>\n
entrepreneurs belonging to the category of ex-servicemen, women,<\/p>\n
unemployed engineering graduates\/ Polytechnic\/ ITI trained candidates,<\/p>\n
oustees of that sector and expansion\/ shifting of existing units.<\/p>\n
               Copy of the brochure is attached as Annexure P-2.<\/p>\n
               It is stated in the writ petitions that respondents No.5 to 30<\/p>\n
have been allotted plots solely on the ground that they were related to the<\/p>\n
people in prominence, which included Members of Legislative Assembly<\/p>\n
and senior Bureaucrats, constituting the ruling clique. Petitioners have<\/p>\n
enumerated the instances to prove this contention. These can be<\/p>\n
summed up as under:\n<\/p>\n
       (a)     That the single plot measuring 2 acres was allotted to Kamla<\/p>\n
               Bhardwaj respondent No.4. She was in Government service<\/p>\n
               till the application form was filed. The petitioners have stated<\/p>\n
               that the allottee was the wife of Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj, a<\/p>\n
               sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Bhiwani<\/p>\n
               constituency.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                            9<\/p>\n
       (b)     Naresh Aggarwal respondent No. 6 was allotted 1 acre plot.<\/p>\n
               Petitioners aver that he had applied for 2 acre plot for<\/p>\n
               allotment to Chinar Multi Feb India Limited. There was no<\/p>\n
               category of 1 acre plot in the brochure. Naresh Aggarwal<\/p>\n
               had also applied for 2 plots of \u00bd acre each for allotment of<\/p>\n
               the same to a company named Parshotam Dass Naresh<\/p>\n
               Kumar Pvt. Ltd. 1 acre plot was not allotted to this company<\/p>\n
               but to Chinar Multi Feb India Limited. Naresh Aggarwal is<\/p>\n
               stated to be grandson of Ram Bhajan Aggarwal, who is<\/p>\n
               former Home Minister and had also held the portfolio of<\/p>\n
               Tourism Minister in the State of Haryana. 1 acre plot was not<\/p>\n
               available in any category, but, was specially created to<\/p>\n
               accommodate the said respondent by clubbing two plots.<\/p>\n
               Furthermore, it is alleged that Naresh Aggarwal was<\/p>\n
               ineligible for the allotment of plot, as earlier 2 plots allotted to<\/p>\n
               him bearing No. 241 and 242 were resumed for non-<\/p>\n
               payment of the installments. Therefore, from his conduct,<\/p>\n
               authorities could not infer that he was having sound financial<\/p>\n
               credentials.\n<\/p>\n
       (c)     A \u00bd acre plot was allotted to Dalsher Singh respondent<\/p>\n
               No.13, who is nephew of Dharambir Singh, the Chief<\/p>\n
               Parliamentary      Secretary      and   Member     of   Legislative<\/p>\n
               Assembly. According to the petitioners, it is perceived in<\/p>\n
               large circles that this was a benami allotment to Dalsher<\/p>\n
               Singh. In fact, the beneficiary was Dharambir Singh.<\/p>\n
       (d)     Another \u00bd acre plot was allotted to Satyender Singh<\/p>\n
               respondent No.20, who is nephew of Sombir Singh, Member<\/p>\n
               of Legislative Assembly from Loharu constituency.
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                                 10<\/p>\n
       (e)     Respondent No.17 Rani is related to Chhatarpal, Member of<\/p>\n
               Legislative Assembly, as he is first cousin of her husband<\/p>\n
               and it is stated that Rani belongs to a family of political<\/p>\n
               influence, as her brother-in-law is the president of Vaish<\/p>\n
               College, Bhiwani and engaged in active politics.<\/p>\n
       (f)     Respondent No.23 Suresh Tanwar is relative of Sandeep<\/p>\n
               Tanwar, Secretary of Haryana Pradesh Congress Party.<\/p>\n
       (g)     R.K. Sachdev respondent No.25 is close relative of Rajiv<\/p>\n
               Arora and Smt.Jyoti Arora. According to the petitioners,<\/p>\n
               these husband and wife duo is posted as senior IAS officer<\/p>\n
               in the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
\n
               The petitioners have laid much emphasis on the assertion<\/p>\n
that all other successful allottees were allotted plots because their close<\/p>\n
relations or friends were in position to exercise influence in the corridors<\/p>\n
of power. Petitioners have made following averments:<\/p>\n
               “3. (viii)     That     the       petitioners   have     reliable
\n       information and strong reasons to believe that allotment that
\n       has been made in favour of Kishan Lal Jain – respondent
\n       No.29 for \u00bc acre has been made because he was the class-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       fellow to Shri M.L.Tayal, IAS, presently posted as Principal
\n       Secretary      to    Chief    Minister,     Haryana.    Shilpa    Gupta
\n       (respondent No.30) daughter of Shri Jai Kumar Gupta, who
\n       has been allotted \u00bc acre plot has been allotted the same for
\n       the reason that her father is a friend of Shri T.C. Gupta, IAS,
\n       (respondent No.38), who is also coincidently posted as Chief
\n       Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar
\n       and was a member of the Allotment Committee. The
\n       petitioners have reasons to believe that allotment of plots in
\n       favour of Bhim Sain, respondent No.8 and Umed Singh,
\n       respondent No.26, have been made at the instance of Ram
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                            11<\/p>\n
       Kishan “Fouji” (respondent No.35) who is a Member
\n       Legislative Assembly from Bawani Khera constituency and
\n       allotment in favour of Ajay Aggarwal, respondent No.12 is at
\n       the instance of Mange Ram Gupta, Minister of Transport and
\n       Education, State of Haryana. The petitioners have reasons to
\n       believe that various other allotments have been made for
\n       considerations other than merit and to persons who are
\n       enjoying the confidence of people in power. Resultantly, a
\n       scam of allotment of industrial plots is rampantly prevalent in
\n       the State of Haryana, which needs to be enquired into as the
\n       distribution of plots raises everything except confidence. It is
\n       difficult-nay-impossible to believe that the allotment in favour
\n       of people who are strikingly close to people in power, were on
\n       account of their suitability and eligibility for industrial plots on
\n       the strength of their merit.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
               The grouse of the petitioners is that a number of allotments<\/p>\n
made in favour of the relatives of politicians or bureaucrats are not co-<\/p>\n
incidental, but on the facts, it stands proved that the allotment was<\/p>\n
arbitrary and was not a result of any just criteria adopted. The petitioners<\/p>\n
state that rules of fairness and transparency have not been followed by<\/p>\n
the allotment committee.\n<\/p>\n
               The officials of HUDA have been impleaded as respondents<\/p>\n
No.2 to 4. They have filed a joint reply, in which it has been submitted<\/p>\n
that HUDA has framed Estate Management Procedure (EMP-2005)<\/p>\n
under the industrial policy 2005 pronounced by the State Government.<\/p>\n
The Committee duly constituted under the Estate Management<\/p>\n
Procedure – 2005 considered the applications of all those persons who<\/p>\n
applied and made recommendations in favour of only those applicants,<\/p>\n
who were able to satisfy the Committee, regarding their financial<\/p>\n
resources, technical knowledge qua the project and genuineness of their
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                        12<\/p>\n
claim. It was submitted that Mrs.Kamla Bhardwaj respondent No.5, along<\/p>\n
with her other three partners, was allotted plot purely on merit and the<\/p>\n
Committee formulated a view that the applicant Mrs.Kamla Bhardwaj was<\/p>\n
fully capable to implement the project successfully and within the<\/p>\n
proposed time period. The allotment of 1 acre plot made to Naresh<\/p>\n
Aggarwal respondent No. 6 was sought to be justified on the ground that<\/p>\n
M\/s Parshotak Dass Naresh Kumar Pvt. Ltd. is a sister concern of Chinar<\/p>\n
Multi Fab. India Limited and the Committee had unanimously decided to<\/p>\n
make allotment of 1 acre plot to Naresh Aggarwal by clubbing two plots<\/p>\n
of \u00bd acre size each. In their written statement filed, regarding the<\/p>\n
allotment made to Dalsher Singh and Satyender Singh, it has been<\/p>\n
stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “3. (iii) That the applicant Dalsher Singh is a graduate
\n       and as per the information supplied is having 10 years of
\n       experiences in the field while associating with his family.
\n       However, the allotment has been made in favour of Dalsher
\n       Singh and after consideration of all the parameters laid in the
\n       Estate Management Procedure-2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iv) That the applicant Satyender Singh has been
\n       allotted a plot. It has been found by the committee that the
\n       applicant has enough basic technical knowledge, which was
\n       an essential feature for the successful implementation of the
\n       project. He was able to give suitable replies to the each and
\n       every query of the committee members to their satisfaction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       The applicant has also enclosed copy of the Jamabandi for
\n       the year 2000-01, which shows property in his name in village
\n       Gagarwas. He has also enclosed copy of a sale deed of a
\n       plot at Bhiwani and therefore, stated that he can raise
\n       requisite resources. It is re-iterated that the experiences of
\n       the applicant is one of the preferential criteria but is not the
\n       only one. The purpose Industrial Policy-2005, is not only to
\n       facilitate the on going business activities but is also meant to
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                              13<\/p>\n
       encourage young and enterprising persons to come ahead
\n       and to take part in the development of nation.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
               Similarly,    in   respect    of      other   successful   applicants,<\/p>\n
mentioned by the petitioners, the official respondents have taken a<\/p>\n
definite stand that the allotment of plots were made to the allottees on the<\/p>\n
ground that the Committee, after holding interview, was satisfied qua<\/p>\n
their claim and had recommended the allotment.<\/p>\n
               Naresh Aggarwal respondent No.6, Rajiv Garg respondent<\/p>\n
No.16, Hem Lata respondent No.18, Satyender Singh respondent No.20,<\/p>\n
Suresh Tanwar respondent No.23, Sombir Singh respondent No.33 and<\/p>\n
Ram Bhajan Aggarwal respondent No. 34, by filing separate written<\/p>\n
statements, have categorically stated that the allotment made was on<\/p>\n
merit and the allegations of malafide have been falsely levelled.<\/p>\n
               Ashok Kumar Aggarwal respondent No. 8 pleaded that he<\/p>\n
has got vast experience to set up an industry and he has been allotted<\/p>\n
plot, as the interview committee had approved the project report<\/p>\n
submitted by him.\n<\/p>\n
               Bhim Singh Garg respondent No.9 has also claimed that his<\/p>\n
claim for allotment of the plot was solely based on merit and no help was<\/p>\n
extended by Ram Kishan ‘Fouji’ respondent No. 35, a sitting member of<\/p>\n
State Legislative Assembly.\n<\/p>\n
               Ghansham Dass Gupta respondent No. 10 submitted that<\/p>\n
the allotment of plot was made after stringent procedure was followed<\/p>\n
and no favour was extended to him by any person.\n<\/p>\n
               Ajmer Singh respondent No.11 has submitted that baseless<\/p>\n
and false allegations have been leveled. He was the deserving candidate<\/p>\n
for the allotment.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                      14<\/p>\n
               Ajay Aggarwal respondent No.12, in his counter-affidavit,<\/p>\n
denied that he was helped by Mange Ram Gupta, Minister for Transport<\/p>\n
and Education respondent No.43.\n<\/p>\n
               Kailash Kumar Sharma respondent No.15 disputed the<\/p>\n
locus-standi of the petitioners to the writ petition No. 2677 of 2008 to file<\/p>\n
the writ petition in public interest. It was further submitted that he had a<\/p>\n
30 years long experience in running industry and had invested his youth,<\/p>\n
capital as well as much hard-work in establishing and commissioning<\/p>\n
Steel-Fabrication Unit in the name of M\/s Kaushik Industries, situated at<\/p>\n
Bamunimaidan, Industrial Area, Gauhati (Assam) and due to law and<\/p>\n
order problem created by extremist outfits such as ULFA, he was<\/p>\n
compelled to close his Fabrication Unit. Thereafter, he came to his native<\/p>\n
place at Bhiwani and applied for allotment of the plot. It has been further<\/p>\n
averred that he had spent Rs.8.00 lakh for the development work at the<\/p>\n
site of plot. He had paid the fee to the consultant also. It has been urged<\/p>\n
by him that the allotment was made in the most fair manner. This<\/p>\n
respondent has pleaded that he has got his firm registered with District<\/p>\n
Industrial Center, Bhiwani under the title of M\/s Sharma Flour Mill and he<\/p>\n
has also obtained VAT number for his firm, M\/s Sharma Flour Mill.<\/p>\n
               Sanjay Kakkar respondent No.19 submitted that he is an<\/p>\n
entrepreneur manufacturing Polypropylene Multifilament Yarn and Tape<\/p>\n
since 2001 and therefore, his experience impressed the Committee to<\/p>\n
make allotment of the plot.\n<\/p>\n
               Shivani Lachhiramka respondent No.22 also denied the<\/p>\n
allegations leveled in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
               Bansi Lal respondent No. 24 submitted that on the basis of<\/p>\n
his individual merit and capabilities, allotment of plot was made, after his<\/p>\n
project report was evaluated and that he is in the process of setting up a
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                        15<\/p>\n
manufacturing unit of Pressure Cookers in the name of M\/s Vishal<\/p>\n
Aluminum Manufacturing Co. at Noida.\n<\/p>\n
               Shilpa Gupta respondent No. 30 submitted that she has got<\/p>\n
requisite experience in designing soft toys and therefore, she succeeded<\/p>\n
to allotment of the plot.\n<\/p>\n
               Dharambir      respondent       No.32   and   Sandeep   Tanwar<\/p>\n
respondent No.36 denied that they were instrumental in allotment of plots<\/p>\n
to any allottee and that the petitioners have exploited their position.<\/p>\n
               Ram Kishan ‘Fouji’ respondent No.35, who is a Member of<\/p>\n
Legislative Assembly, has denied that the allotment made to respondent<\/p>\n
No.9 was due to any influence exercised by him.\n<\/p>\n
               M.R. Gupta, Education and Transport Minister respondent<\/p>\n
No. 43 has filed his affidavit to state that he has no concern with the<\/p>\n
allottee Ajay Aggarwal and the Ministries headed by him are not engaged<\/p>\n
in the allotment of industrial plots. He denied that he exercised any<\/p>\n
influence for allotment of industrial plot to Ajay Aggarwal.<\/p>\n
               We have heard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
               A perusal of the record reveals that no comparative merit of<\/p>\n
the applicants was drawn. No exercise to compare the successful<\/p>\n
allottees and unsuccessful applicants was undertaken. The relevant<\/p>\n
factors, i.e., experience, availability of capital, qualification, managerial<\/p>\n
capability and professional skill etc. were not considered to determine<\/p>\n
inter-se merit. The committee had interviewed the applicants and on a<\/p>\n
separate sheet, had given reasons for making the allotment of plot. The<\/p>\n
reasons given are general in nature, vague and non-specific. The<\/p>\n
reasons spelt out are such that they can stick to any applicant, to whom<\/p>\n
the committee wanted to make allotment. To illustrate, one or two<\/p>\n
examples can be made part of this judgment:\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                                       16<\/p>\n
Kamla          Manufacturin     750.00   Ms.     Kamla      Bhardwaj     applicant      herself<\/p>\n
Bhardwaj,      g             of lacs     attended the interview. The application has<\/p>\n
M\/s Lifeline   Intravenous               been made in the name of M\/s Lifeline Health<\/p>\n
Health         Transfusion               Care, a partnership concern which consists of<\/p>\n
Care,          Solutions                 four partners having 25% share each. Two of<\/p>\n
Bhardwaj                                 the partners are Doctors i.e. professionals &<\/p>\n
Hospital,                                remaining two partners are highly qualified<\/p>\n
Rohtak                                   as, one is having Pharma Degree and the<\/p>\n
Gate,                                    other    is   having      Diploma    in    Mechanical<\/p>\n
Bhiwani.                                 Engineering. They are desirous to set up a<\/p>\n
                                         manufacturing          unit     of        Intravenous<\/p>\n
                                         Transfusion Solutions. The total investment<\/p>\n
                                         in the project shall be 750.00 lac.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                         The following shall be financial pattern:\n<\/p>\n
                                         From Banks\/Financial Institutions : 500.00 lac<\/p>\n
                                         Own sources\/unsecured loans               : 250.00 lac<\/p>\n
                                         She     is    qualified   and   well      experienced<\/p>\n
                                         practicising doctor. She stated that, before<\/p>\n
                                         making the application, she had visited USA<\/p>\n
                                         for study of the project and after collecting all<\/p>\n
                                         the data relating to project has decided to set<\/p>\n
                                         up this project. The product shall be of<\/p>\n
                                         international standards. She assured that she<\/p>\n
                                         shall implement the project successfully within<\/p>\n
                                         a period of three years. She has already<\/p>\n
                                         made arrangements of technical know how,<\/p>\n
                                         marketing and specifically of finances. The<\/p>\n
                                         committee has gone through the details given<\/p>\n
                                         in the project profile. She was also thoroughly<\/p>\n
                                         questioned by all the committee members<\/p>\n
                                         about minute details of the project and she
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                                   17<\/p>\n
Dalsher        To set up a 91.50         Shri. Dalsher Singh, who is a graduate<\/p>\n
Singh,         P.P. Plant      lacs      himself appeared. The applicant is a sole<\/p>\n
Behind                                   proprietorship concern. He is desirous to set<\/p>\n
PWD      B&R                             up a manufacturing unit of P.P. Tape, Cloth,<\/p>\n
Workshop,                                Niwar etc. The total investment in the project<\/p>\n
Vidya                                    shall be 91.50 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
Nagar,<\/p>\n
Meham
\n                                         The following shall be financial pattern:<\/p>\n
Road,\n<\/p>\n
                                         1. From Banks\/Financial             : 68.62 lacs
\nBhiwani
\n                                           Institutions<\/p>\n
                                         2. Own sources\/unsecured loans : 22.88 lacs<\/p>\n
                                         The applicant has claimed that he has gained<\/p>\n
                                         10 years experience in the line. He has<\/p>\n
                                         further explained to the Committee that he<\/p>\n
                                         belongs to the industrialist family, who are<\/p>\n
                                         already in the same line for more than one<\/p>\n
                                         decade. While associating them, he has<\/p>\n
                                         acquired full expertise in the field of technical<\/p>\n
                                         know-how source of raw material, machinery,<\/p>\n
                                         its costing, demand etc. He was well aware of<\/p>\n
                                         the covered area requirement for this project.<\/p>\n
                                         It has been claimed by him that he has<\/p>\n
                                         already arrange oral commitment from Bank,<\/p>\n
                                         his family members and relatives. For the<\/p>\n
                                         project, ground coverage shall be equal to<\/p>\n
                                         10000 sq. ft. He shall be gainfully utilizing the<\/p>\n
                                         permissible covered area up to optimum level<\/p>\n
                                         on first and second floor of the proposed<\/p>\n
                                         building.<\/p>\n
\n                                         The Committee has gone through the details<\/p>\n
                                         given in the project profile and as further<\/p>\n
                                         explained by the person,         attending the
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                            18<\/p>\n
               The reasons given qua Dalsher Singh that the applicant<\/p>\n
entrepreneur seems to be young, promising and genuine entrepreneur,<\/p>\n
and that although, he did not carry with him any documentary evidence,<\/p>\n
but was able to convince and satisfy the committee members about the<\/p>\n
genuineness of the claim, were too subjective and lacked objectivity.<\/p>\n
Similarly in case of Kamla Bhardwaj, to say that “after going through the<\/p>\n
details given in the project profile and interaction\/ discussions with the<\/p>\n
person attending the interview, the Committee has assessed this<\/p>\n
applicant fully capable to implement the project successfully and within a<\/p>\n
reasonable time period” is a reason which can be bestowed upon any<\/p>\n
person, to whom the committee desires to allot the plot. Case of other<\/p>\n
successful allottees is no different. In case of another successful allottee,<\/p>\n
Ajay Aggarwal, the committee observed as under:<\/p>\n
               “Although he did not carry with him documentary
\n       evidences but he presented his claim of being financially
\n       capable to implement the project successfully in such a way
\n       that all the committee members with unanimous view,
\n       decided to accept the explanation as true & correct. The
\n       applicant has offered 12 months to start commercial
\n       production. The committee was fully satisfied with the
\n       genuineness       of   the    project    and   commitment   of   the
\n       entrepreneur.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The petitioners had also impleaded the persons, against<\/p>\n
whom allegations of malafide were levelled. We are not inclined to<\/p>\n
examine the allegations of malafide and their denial. We are of the view<\/p>\n
that the committee ought to have evolved criteria for allotting marks<\/p>\n
under the different sub-heads, e.g. qualification, experience, financial<\/p>\n
strength, product, capability and skill. The allotment of marks could be on
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                         19<\/p>\n
various counts. They cannot be put in water tight jackets, but the<\/p>\n
example has been given only to elaborate our view. It is admitted stand<\/p>\n
of the official respondents that no comparative table or merit-list was<\/p>\n
drawn in case of all the applicants, who were interviewed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               The issue which has arisen before us is that whether the<\/p>\n
exception which has been made to the general rule can be justified by<\/p>\n
the State. Before proceeding to answer this question, it would be<\/p>\n
imperative to make reference to the case of ‘New India Public School v.<\/p>\n
HUDA<\/a>‘ (1996) 5 SCC 510 wherein also the allotment made by HUDA<\/p>\n
were questioned. It was urged on behalf of the Haryana Urban<\/p>\n
Development Authority that allotment by auction is not the only criteria<\/p>\n
provided in Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,<\/p>\n
1977. The Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings)<\/p>\n
Regulations, 1978 do indicate the provision for allotment by modes other<\/p>\n
than public auction. Proviso to regulation 5(3) itself gives power for<\/p>\n
allotment to groups or individuals or persons practicing any profession or<\/p>\n
carrying on any occupation, trade or business or for any such categories<\/p>\n
of persons or government department or institution or charitable<\/p>\n
institutions or other organisations for public welfare as may be decided by<\/p>\n
the authority from time to time. This argument was rejected by observing<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “A reading thereof, in particular Section 15(3) read with
\n       Regulation 3(c) does indicate that there are several modes of
\n       disposal of the property acquired by HUDA for public
\n       purpose. One of the modes of transfer of property as
\n       indicated in sub-section (3) of Section 15 read with sub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       regulation (c) of Regulation 5 is public auction, allotment or
\n       otherwise. When public authority discharges its public duty
\n       the word “otherwise” would be construed to be consistent
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                             20<\/p>\n
       with the public purpose and clear and unequivocal guidelines
\n       or rules are necessary and not at the whim and fancy of the
\n       public authorities or under their garb or cloak for any
\n       extraneous consideration. It would depend upon the nature of
\n       the scheme and object of public purpose sought to be
\n       achieved.      In   all   cases    relevant   criterion   should   be
\n       predetermined by specific rules or regulations and published
\n       for the public. Therefore, the public authorities are required to
\n       make necessary specific regulations or valid guidelines to
\n       exercise their discretionary powers; otherwise, the salutary
\n       procedure would be by public auction. The Division Bench,
\n       therefore, has rightly pointed out that in the absence of such
\n       statutory regulations exercise of discretionary power to allot
\n       sites to private institutions or persons was not correct in law.”
\n       (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n
               It has been strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the present case is covered by the ratio of ‘Delhi Assam<\/p>\n
Roadways        Corporation       Ltd.    v.   Haryana    Urban    Development<\/p>\n
Authority’ 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 389 wherein allotments made by the<\/p>\n
Haryana Urban Development Authority were set aside in view of the law<\/p>\n
laid down in New India Public School by observing as under:<\/p>\n
               “30. It was in fact conceded that no pre-determined
\n       criteria was published before the application could be placed
\n       before the Selection Committee. It is further clear that
\n       respondent No. 1 HUDA was party-respondent in the case of
\n       New India Public School (Supra) before this Court as well as
\n       before the Hon’ble Supreme court. It is, therefore, fully aware
\n       about the law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble the
\n       Supreme Court. It was incumbent and obligatory on its part to
\n       either publish the pre-determined criteria of allotment as per
\n       the provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with Regulations
\n       3, 4 and 5 of the Regulations if the allotment was to be made
\n       by any other method, than public auction. Otherwise, the safe
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                                  21<\/p>\n
       method in the larger public interest and in the interest of
\n       HUDA respondent No. 1 would be to resort to public auction
\n       as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               31. We do not wish to make detail reference to
\n       numerous observations made by their Lordships of Hon’ble
\n       the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramana Shetty v.
\n       International Airport Authority of India<\/a>, AIR 1979 SC 1628;
\n       Mohd. Rashid Ahmed v. State of U.P<\/a>., AIR 1979 SC 592;
\n       Jaya Cellular v. Union of India, JT 1994(4) SC 532; Kumari
\n       Shri Lekha Vidharthi v. State of U.P<\/a>., 1991(1) S.C.T. 575 :
\n       AIR 1991 SC 537; and M\/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v.
\n       State of J&K, 1980(4) SCC 1. It is suffice to conclude that
\n       wherever the authorities are entrusted with the duty of selling
\n       public property or granting its lease, then normal method is
\n       auction or call for tenders so that all the intending purchasers
\n       should have equal opportunity of submitting their bids and
\n       tenders. The authority entrusted with such duty or the
\n       Government, as the case may be, is required to act fairly in
\n       arriving    at    the    best    available       arrangement      in   the
\n       circumstances. In that regard reference may be made to the
\n       judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in G.D. Zalani v.
\n       Union of India, JT<\/a> 1995(2) SC 420. Therefore, by no stretch
\n       of imagination, HUDA-respondent No. 1 can justify the failure
\n       either to resort to public auction or proceed for allotment on
\n       the basis of a pre- determined published criterion if the
\n       allotment was to be made by any other method especially
\n       when in the case of New India Public School it was a party
\n       before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore all these
\n       allotments are liable to be set aside.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               32. We are further of the view that the so called
\n       selection committee failed to advert to the comparative merits
\n       of the applicants and it has not been pointed out as to why
\n       the allottee was selected from amongst those applicants who
\n       have been left out. It was in these circumstances that the
\n       Division     Bench      judgment      of      this   Court   in   Munish
\n       Manufacturing Corporation, Ludhiana (Supra) has held that
\n       every activity of the Government has a public element in it
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                          22<\/p>\n
       and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by
\n       public interest. If the Government awards a contract or leases
\n       out or otherwise deals with public property or grants any
\n       other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on
\n       the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it
\n       fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and
\n       invalid.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
               Hon’ble Apex Court, in ‘Dr. Krushan Chandra Sahu v.<\/p>\n
State of Orissa<\/a>‘ 1996 AIR (SC) 352, held that the selection committee<\/p>\n
does not have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms of selection,<\/p>\n
nor such powers can be assumed by necessary implication. Therefore,<\/p>\n
where the candidates were selected on the basis of character rolls, it was<\/p>\n
held that the procedure adopted by the selection board was wholly<\/p>\n
arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
               In the present case, the procedure for allotment was stated<\/p>\n
to be due assessment of the application\/ project report, individual merit<\/p>\n
and financial capability of the entrepreneur. The project reports submitted<\/p>\n
by the applicants have not been evaluated. No criteria was adopted to<\/p>\n
find out as to which project report, submitted by the applicants, was<\/p>\n
better than the other. Similarly, there is no inter-se determination of<\/p>\n
financial capability. Some of the successful entrepreneurs had no<\/p>\n
documents to support their cases. Loans from banks and financial<\/p>\n
institutions were not tied up. No appraisal of the project reports was done<\/p>\n
by the financial institutions. Qua one of the eligible candidates, i.e. Umed<\/p>\n
Singh Mapinia, the Committee had to say as under:<\/p>\n
               “The committee has gone through the details given in
\n       the project profile and as further explained by the person,
\n       attending the interview. After going through the details given
\n       in the project profile and interaction\/ discussions with the
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                         23<\/p>\n
       person attending the interview, the Committee has observed
\n       that the applicant\/ entrepreneur although first generation
\n       entrepreneur but seems to be young and promising
\n       entrepreneur. He has acquired adequate experience in the
\n       marketing of Readymade garments and well conversant with
\n       the various processes of the industry. The covered area is in
\n       consonance with the size of plot applied for which is as per
\n       HUDA Policy. He has also submitted the sources of plant and
\n       machinery from where we will collect the same. He has
\n       knowledge about the machinery and sources of raw material
\n       and has wide range of the market potential. He has
\n       elaborated his own source of income before the committee
\n       which seeks to be genuine. Although the applicant did not
\n       bring supporting documents but during cross checking and
\n       enquiry, the applicant was able to convince all the committee
\n       members.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The above example, when tested on the touchstone of the<\/p>\n
following observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘M\/s Kasturi Lal<\/p>\n
Lakshmi Reddy, etc. v. The State of J & K and another’ 1980 AIR<\/p>\n
(SC) 1992, leaves us to only inference that the plots were allotted, as<\/p>\n
State largesse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above said judgment,<\/p>\n
observed as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “15.   The second limitation on the discretion of the
\n       Government in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to
\n       whom such largesse may be granted. It is now well settled
\n       as a result of the decision of this Court in Ramana D. Shetty
\n       v. International Airport Authority of India<\/a>. (AIR 1979 SC
\n       1628) (supra) that the Government is not free, like an
\n       ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largesse
\n       and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its
\n       absolute and unfettered discretion. The law is now well
\n       established that the Government need not deal with anyone,
\n       but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                       24<\/p>\n
       and without unfair procedure. Where the Government is
\n       dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or
\n       entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the
\n       Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a
\n       private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its
\n       action must be in conformity with some standard or norm
\n       which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               To emphasize, reliance can again be placed upon ‘Ramana<\/p>\n
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>‘ 1979 (3) SCC 489, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that<\/p>\n
“State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational<\/p>\n
and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory: it must not be guided<\/p>\n
by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be<\/p>\n
denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which<\/p>\n
is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or<\/p>\n
non-arbitrariness is projected by Article 14<\/a> and it must characterise every<\/p>\n
State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of<\/p>\n
executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act<\/p>\n
arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a<\/p>\n
third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm<\/p>\n
which is rational and non-discriminatory. This principle was<\/p>\n
recognised and applied by a Bench of this Court presided over by Ray,<\/p>\n
C.J., in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal<\/a><\/p>\n
where the learned Chief Justice pointed out that ‘the State can carry on<\/p>\n
executive function by making a law or without making a law. The exercise<\/p>\n
of such powers and functions in trade by the State is subject to Part III of<\/p>\n
the Constitution. Article 14<\/a> speaks of equality before the law and equal<\/p>\n
protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of
\n Civil Writ Petitions No. 2677, 3870 & 3915 of 2008                      25<\/p>\n
public contracts. The State has the right to trade. The State has there the<\/p>\n
duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal<\/p>\n
with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by<\/p>\n
discrimination’.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The question, which we have asked ourselves, is whether<\/p>\n
the procedure adopted by the Committee that ‘allotment of plot will be<\/p>\n
after due assessment of the application\/project report & on basis of<\/p>\n
individual merits\/financial capabilities of entrepreneurs’ satisfies the test<\/p>\n
of rational and relevant principle, which is non-discriminatory ? It makes<\/p>\n
us conclude that until and unless each applicant was compared, it vested<\/p>\n
arbitrary power in the Committee to discriminate and say that candidate<\/p>\n
‘A’ is better than candidate ‘B’. Thus, the procedure adopted by the<\/p>\n
Committee, in no way, can be termed as rational in answering all the<\/p>\n
requirements of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution of India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               In these circumstances, we accept the present writ petitions,<\/p>\n
quash the allotments made in pursuance of the recommendations of the<\/p>\n
Committee and direct the respondent Haryana Urban Development<\/p>\n
Authority to evolve a criteria, which is in accordance with the<\/p>\n
requirements of law and observations made by us and to re-assess the<\/p>\n
comparative merit of the applicants. We propose no costs.<\/p>\n
    [T. S. THAKUR]                       [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]\n    CHIEF JUSTICE                                   JUDGE\n\nNovember 12, 2009\nrps\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2677 of 2008 Date of decision: 12th November, 2009 Babbar Bhan and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents Civil Writ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6727,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009"},"wordCount":6727,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009","name":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-23T07:06:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babbar-bhan-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babbar Bhan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}