AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lisa Gill, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent No. 2 -Haryana Urban Development Authority, Manimajra (HUDA) contained in the impugned memo dated 06.02.1992 to the effect that industrial site of five acres in Industrial Area, Mandi Township at Tohana would be sold through open auction. Respondent No. 2 - HUDA had decided not to allot this land to the petitioner for setting up a unit to manufacture transformers.
The petitioner company had proposed to set up the industrial unit for manufacturing transformers and respondent No. 5 - HSIDC (now HSIIDC) also agreed to take the proposed unit in its assisted sector. The petitioner-company applied for the allotment of industrial site measuring about five acres for setting up of this unit (Annexure P2). The application was processed by the Single Window Service Committee (SWSC). It was decided by the said Committee in its meeting held on 30.03.1990 that the land measuring five acres belonging to HUDA situated in Tohana, which was lying vacant, may be allotted to the petitioner-company if the Estate Officer, HUDA, intimates the availability of the land for allotment. HSIIDC had also proposed to allot a strip of land measuring half acre adjoining to the five acres of land mentioned above.
However, it was decided by HUDA that the land in question, is available for sale through public auction only. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised vide memo dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure P17) to make his bid at the time of auction.
The petitioner challenges this decision by terming it as a somersault on the part of HUDA and contends with specific reference to the minutes of the meetings of SWSC dated 30.03.1990 and 26.06.1991 that once the SWSC has recommended for the allotment of industrial site to the petitioner-company, the same could not be denied by HUDA. Furthermore, a concluded contract had been arrived at between the petitioner, State of Haryana, HSIIDC and HUDA pursuant to the meeting of SWSC on 26.06.1991. The utilization plan of the land and the necessary undertaking had also been submitted by the petitioner-company and it had altered its position to its detriment on the assurance of the respondents.
It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the plot through open auction would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it would amount to denial of equal opportunity to the petitioner. It is urged that the decision taken by the SWSC is final and HUDA could not take this decision of transferring the abovesaid industrial site of five acres through open auction.
The question to be determined in this case is as to whether HUDA is within its rights in not allotting the land to the petitioner and deciding to transfer the said industrial site of five acres in industrial area of Mandi Township, Tohana through an open auction?
It is not disputed that the industrial site, in question, belongs to HUDA. The relevant extract of the minutes of meeting of the SWSC dated 30.03.1990 reads as under:-
The Chairman constituted a committee comprising of Shri Surjeet Singh DTP, Hisar and Shri Virender Singh FM, DIC and asked them to visit the site and report as discussed in the meeting regarding availability of the land and its prospects for allotting to such prestigious unit. This report should be placed before next SWS Committee meeting and if land found suitable and Estate Officer, HUDA also communicates regarding its availability for allotment then a notice be issued to General Public so that allotment of this land be considered to this unit alongwith other units depending on the merits............
Reliance is sought to be placed on the recommendation made by the SWSC in its meeting held on 26.06.1991 (Annexure P10) vide which five acres of land in question had been converted for industrial purposes by HUDA and the availability of land was also intimated. The cost of the land had not been fixed.
The SWSC in the abovesaid meeting on 26.06.1991 had recommended for the allotment of the said land as well as the strip of land by HSIDC. This recommendation by SWSC cannot be taken to be binding on HUDA which is an independent statutory authority. It is merely a recommendation and no rule or provision has been pointed out to say that such like recommendations are binding and have to be followed by HUDA.
Vide order dated 06.10.1995, this Court had directed that an affidavit of respondent No. 2 be filed to the effect that no industrial plot under the Single Window Service had been allotted in any Mandi Township including Tohana. Affidavit dated 01.02.1996 filed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, reads as under:-
That after 1990 no industrial plot under Single Window Services has been allotted in any Mandi Township which includes Tohana as well.
That the industrial plots in the different Mandi Townships are to be sold in open auction.
Therefore, it is clear that HUDA has followed uniform policy of auctioning the industrial sites and there is no question of any discrimination qua the petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality in the decision of HUDA to auction the said industrial site thereby giving equal opportunity to all interested persons. The petitioner does not have any vested right for allotment only on the basis of recommendation made by the SWSC or on the ground that HSIDC was also a part of the project. The petitioner would be at liberty to participate alongwith others in the auction as and when the same is held.
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty aforementioned.