Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar Rawal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 April, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:- 24.04.2012
1. Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010
Rajinder Kumar Rawal and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
2. Civil Writ Petition No. 22855 of 2010
Sant Lal Aggarwal and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
3. Civil Writ Petition No. 13228 of 2010
Vijay Kumar Goel and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 2
4. Civil Writ Petition No. 23330 of 2010
Amit Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
5. Civil Writ Petition No. 19439 of 2010
Kamlesh Rajpal and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
6. Civil Writ Petition No. 19588 of 2010
Anup Garg ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 3
7. Civil Writ Petition No. 1943 of 2011
Vanita Bindal and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
8. Civil Writ Petition No. 1975 of 2011
Neeraj Kathpal and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: None for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
9. Civil Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2011
Krishan Kumar Garg ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 4
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.17397, 22855, 13228, 23330, 19439, 19588 of 2010, 1943, 1975 and 5397 of 2011, as all these petitions are based upon identical facts raising common questions of law.
The Improvement Trust, Hissar framed a Scheme for allotment of freehold commercial plots in Vyapar and Vayvasaykunj Pariyojna, Phase-1, II and III-A, B, C at Hisar. The petitioners are the applicants for 270 plots in Phase-III, Hisar, the applications of which were invited from 15.10.2004, whereas the last date was 30.10.2004. The applications were to be submitted along with the earnest money equivalent to 10% of the tentative price.
Some of the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in CWP No.16257 of 2008 titled as Panna Lal and others Vs. Hisar Improvement Trust as there was delay in holding the draw of lots. This Court on 16.02.2009 directed that final decision with regard to draw of lots of the plots falling in Phase-III of the Scheme be taken as early as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a report of the enquiry. Subsequently, period for holding the draw of lots was extended to 31.10.2009.
Vide communication dated 21.10.2009, the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, recommended the cancellation of draw of lots, refund of earnest money and calling of fresh applications with modification of the eligibility criteria. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner was accompanied with an enquiry report, wherein on the basis of random physical verification, many irregularities in the manner of allotment of plots came to Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 5 be noticed. It was found that all applicants of 'reserved category' in Phase-III are of dummy nature and that the well to do applicants have applied in the name of the poor workman/person, who are either working as their servants or have shops or business somewhere else in the name of other family members. The manipulations seem to have been done in the 'reserved categories' applications with a view to avail the benefit by the ineligible persons/businessmen. Such recommendations were accepted by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, on 14.05.2010, wherein it was decided that all the leftover plots i.e. 270 plots, shall be sold through open auction. The petitioners had challenged the decision to cancel the allotment of plots by draw of lots.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once the Improvement Trust has decided to allot the plots, they are estopped to scrap the process of allotment and sell the plots through auction. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. and others, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 777 and Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and another Vs. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1021.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1979 PLR 413 and The Express Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others Vs. State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 6 and others, CWP No.8905 of 1997 (decided on 03.10.1997), which were followed in CWP No. 3342 of 1998 titled as Smt. Manju Jindal and another Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh (decided on 11.05.1998), to contend that no right accrues to the petitioners with the submissions of the application forms. Until and unless letter of allotment is issued, the petitioners cannot claim any interest in the plots. The plea of estoppel raised was also rejected.
In Surjit Singh's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court held that by filing an application, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application, but he does not get a vested right for allotment of the plot. The Court observed as under:-
"......By filing an application in accordance with law, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application, but he does not get a vested right for allotment of the plot. The conditions laid down in the first scheme or the provisions of rule 5 (3) do not give any right to the applicants to claim allotment of plots as a matter of right. There is nothing in the scheme or the Act or the Rules which requires the adoption of the principle of 'first come fir served' at the time of allotment, or debars the Government from adopting the method of drawing lots. The petitioners have not been able to lay foundation for establishing their right which could legally be enforced and the petitioners have completely failed to make out a case for the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Later on, a Division Bench of this Court in Manju Jindal's case (supra), examined three questions, including the question, whether the petitioners have acquired vested rights to be allotted Industrial shed by mere submission of applications along with earnest money. While answering the said question, the Court observed as under:-
"Applying the ratio of the decisions quoted above to the facts of these case, we hold that mere submission of applications by the petitioners did not Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 7 create an indefeasible and enforceable right in their favour for allotment of industrial sheds and no writ can be issued directing the respondents to allot industrial sheds to them in terms of the advertisement."
Later on, the Court considered the arguments of the writ petitioners that the respondents are bound to allot plots on the basis of doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court negated the arguments, so as to raise plea of promissory estoppel by observing as under:-
"In law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel represents a principle of equity evolved by the Courts to prevent injustice. The correct principle underlying the doctrine of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his words of conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relation or affect a legal relationship to arise in future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party. The promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been applied against the Government and the argument based on executive necessity has been categorically negatived. Thus, where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and in fact, the promisee relying on it alters its position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the government at the instance of the promisee. However, in such matters the doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts of the case, it would be inequitable to bind the Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government. Likewise, in cases in which the Government changed its policy in larger public interest and establishes before the Court that it would be against the public interest to enforce the promise, the Court may relieve the Government of its obligation to fulfill the promise."
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jasbir Singh Chhabra and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2010) 4 SCC 192, held Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 8 as under:-
"17. The Division Bench of the High Court first considered whether the writ petitioners were entitled to invoke the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, referred to the judgments of this Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) SCC 71, Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3SCC 499, National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66, Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. SEB, (1997) 7 SCC 251 and Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274 held that even though the State Government and the Corporation, which is in an instrumentality of the State are expected to act fairly and reasonably in their dealing with the members of public, mere inviting of applications and draw of lots by the Corporation did not create a right in favour of the writ petitioners and they cannot invoke the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel for compelling the Corporation to allot plots to them in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Focal Point, Mohali because in the format of application, it was clearly mentioned that acceptance of the application form and earnest money will not place the Corporation under an obligation to allot plot to the applicant."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court and held that by making an application pursuant to the advertisement and on being declared successful in the draw of lots, no promise is made out.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and others Vs. Manju Jain and others, (2010) 9 SCC 157, allowed an appeal, wherein the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled for failure to deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. The Hon'ble Court held that mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. It was held to the following effect:-
"21. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to Civil Writ Petition No. 17397 of 2010 9 identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment."
In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal while holding that the writ petitioner has not sent the acceptance letter within the time granted in the letter of allotment.
In view of the above discussion, we find that no right of the petitioner(s) has been infringed when the authorities decided not to proceed with the allotment of plots, but to conduct public auction of such plots.
Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL)
April 24, 2012 JUDGE
ajp/vimal