AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Uma Nath Singh. J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the writ record.
It appears that petitioner applied for allotment of industrial plot in Industrial Estate, Rai, District Sonepat, on 1.3 .2005. Size of the plot applied for, was 450 square meters. Petitioner submitted that application pursuant to information on Website. Thereafter, on 17.7.2006, respondent HSIDC issued an advertisement in ''Hindustan Times'', which disclosed that about 160 plots were available in Rai Industrial Estate. Admittedly, petitioner did not apply separately in response to that advertisement. Petitioner was called for interview on 29.8.2007 in respect of his application which he had submitted in 2005. This is also admitted that petitioner, after sending application in 2005, did not send a reminder or approach HUDA authorities. On 9.10.2007, petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, and came to know that his application for allotment of plot was rejected after interview. Petitioner was refunded the earnest money, Rs.87,750/. Petitioner is before us to seek the writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.5.2008, Annexure P7, rejecting his application and directing refund of earnest money. He also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the authorities concerned to reconsider his case.
On being asked, learned counsel for petitioner could not show any provision of law or Government policy or Executive instructions that authorities concerned are under obligation to supply reason for rejection of application. As noticed above, this is also admitted that after sending the application pursuant to advertisement on website in the year 2005, petitioner did not take any step to further pursue it by sending reminders etc. Petitioner has also not given any example that any similarly situated applicant was allotted plots, whereas, he was unjustifiably denied.
Thus, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.