National Chemical Industries Ltd. vs State of Haryana

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by M/s. National Chemical Industries Limited, Haryana through its Director Shri Goenka, for quashing of order of respondent No. 3 dated 3.6.1986, copy Annexure P7 to the writ petition, vide which respondent No. 3 had withdrawn the permission of division and zoning and to follow up order dated 5.11.1984, copy Annexure P4 to the writ petition, vide which respondent No. 2 had approved the proposal for preparing the zoning of individual plots Nos. 119 to 130, of Sector 24 Faridabad.

The petitioner is a public limitedCompany registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is having its registered office at M24, Green Park, New Delhi and Shri R.C. Goenka is one of the Directors of the petitionerCompany who was authorised to file the present writ petition for quashing the above said orders.

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitionerCompany was allotted plots Nos. 119 to 130, Sector 24, Faridabad under drawing No. DTP/243/69, each plot having been shown as a separate plot, in the year 1969. The State of Haryana in the year 1975 prepared fresh zoning plan and grouped the plots of the petitionerCompany. The petitionerCompany from 1977 to 1983 suffered huge losses on account of mismanagement which became due from Company. The petitionerCompany could not meet its liabilities. Delhi High Court at New Delhi vide order dated 22.5.1981 ordered winding up of the Company and also appointed official liquidator to take charge of the Company and its properties. Under orders of the Delhi High Court dated 15.3.1983, the official liquidator was directed to hand over the management and control of the petitionerCompany to the new management and the new management took possession of the plant, machinery, assets and records from the official liquidator. Thereafter, Company paid a sum of Rs. 11,28,000/ against the sale price of Rs. 8,50,000/ as envisaged under the scheme sanctioned by High Court of Delhi. Copy of the receipt is Annexure P1 to the writ petition. Sometime later, the Company wrote a letter to the Estate Officer requesting him to allow the transfer of title of plot and permission for individual zoning of the plots. Copy of the letter dated 30.6.1984 is Annexure P2 to the writ petition. On receipt of the Company''s request the Chief Town Planner, Gurgaon gave no objection to the individual zoning vide letter copy Annexure P3 to the writ petition as was shown in the original layout plaint prepared in January, 1969. The Chief Administrator vide his order dated 5.11.1984 copy Annexure P4 to the writ petition, approved the proposal for zoning of the individual plots and informed the petitionerCompany.

Respondent No. 3 thereafter issued letters dated 6.11.1985, 7.3.1986 and 18.3.1986 to various prospective buyers of the plots for submission of their schemes to the Director of Industries. The prospective purchasers were directed to appear before the Allotment Committee vide order dated 19.12.1985, copy Annexure P6 to the writ petition for further discussion etc. Respondent No 1 i.e. the Chief Administrator informed the Estate Office with copy to the petitionerCompany vide letter dated 3.6.1986 copy Annexure P7 (to the writ petition) that the permission granted to the petitionerCompany with regard to the individual zoning had been withdrawn.

PetitionerCompany submitted a detailed representation on 12.2.1988 to the Chief Minister, Haryana, seeking directions to the Chief Administrator to permit transfer of the title of the said plots. In view of the above facts and circumstances the petitionerCompany has filed this writ petition challenging order Annexure P7.

The case was admitted and this court vide order dated 21.7.1988 had granted ad interim stay to the petitionerCompany which was made absolute on 3.11.1989.

The challenge to the impugned order primarily is on the ground that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard.

Mr. G.S. Grewal, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed on extraneous considerations. The counsel further contends that once Senior Town Planner, Gurgaon, had sanctioned the individual zoning of the plots which had been approved by respondent No. 1 and after intimating to the petitioner, the same could not be withdrawn arbitrarily.

Mr. S.C. Mohunta, learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents contends that no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitionerCompany, and the impugned order had been rightly passed.

On the consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that once Senior Town Planner gave no objection to the individual zoning of the plots and having accepted the proposal for zoning of the individual plots and after intimating the approval to the petitionerCompany, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which admittedly was not granted. Be that as it may, the impugned action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play the same having been passed in an arbitrary manner.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.4.1986 Annexure P7 is quashed. It is, however, observed that the respondents, if so advised, may proceed according to rules and regulations and it is made absolutely clear that petitionerCompany will be afforded an opportunity in case any adverse order against them is passed.

Parties to bear their own costs.