Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar Yadav vs Haryana State Industrial And ... on 21 May, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Naresh Kumar Sanghi
C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013
Date of Decision: May 21, 2013
Ravinder Kumar Yadav
... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd., Panchkula & others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot at Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, District Rewari for setting up of a project of Software Development. Vide Letter of Allotment dated 31.3.2006, the petitioner was allotted an industrial plot bearing No.81, Sector 3 having an area of 450 sq. mtr. for setting up of the said project with certain terms and conditions. As per the agreement executed by the petitioner, in pursuance of the said allotment letter, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3, the petitioner was to implement the project within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession and implementation of the project shall mean the commencement of commercial production, after installation of the plant and machinery.
In the year 2006, the respondents also invited applications for allotment of free hold plots to Co-operative Group Housing Societies C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013 -2- comprising of Industrial Workers/Executives/Allottees and Industrial Firms/Companies. The petitioner being allottee of the industrial plot had also applied for allotment of Group Housing site for being utilized for residential accommodation for the workers engaged in the industrial project. The petitioner was allotted a 2000 sq. mtr. Plot vide Letter of Intent issued on 30.3.2007 (Annexure P-5) on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner was required to submit the proof in respect of the commencement of the industrial production in his industrial unit. Since the petitioner could not commence the industrial production, he was issued a show-cause notice dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P10) as to why the Letter of Intent issued in his favour for allotment of Group Housing Plot No.4, Sector 2, Growth Centre, Bawal be not withdrawn on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent. Ultimately, vide order dated 13/16.8.2010 (Annexure P-13) the said Letter of Intent was withdrawn on the ground that the permissible period of three years allowed to the petitioner for implementation of the industrial project on Plot No.81, Sector 3 expired on 30.3.2009 and he has failed to commence production activity on the industrial plot, which is in clear violation of the prescribed timelines of the LOI and, thus, the LOI issued by the respondent- Corporation to the petitioner for allotment of the Group Housing site stands withdrawn.
The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the appeal. The Appellate Committee vide its order dated 25.9.2012 rejected the appeal, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
" 5. The case was again considered by the Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2012, when it was observed that the C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013 -3- appellant had never implemented the project on the industrial plot at the scale it was projected at the time of allotment. The Committee also observed that as per latest site report dated 03.09.2012, the building constructed by the allottee on the industrial plot was to the extent of just 152.45 sq. meters i.e. 27.47% of Permissible Covered Area (PCA) against total permissible covered area of 125% and, moreover, the unit was not functional as the premises was found locked. The Committee also noted that the allottee had proposed manpower strength of 115 persons for his industrial project as per the approved project report submitted at the time of allotment, against which the actual manpower deployed by the appellant was found to be nil on the date of inspection/Field report dated 03.09.2012. Since the group housing site was to be utilized for residential accommodation for the employees/workers engaged in the industrial project and as on date the unit was not fully constructed and was also not functional, therefore, the appellant was not eligible for allotment of 2000 sq. meter size group housing site.
6. In view of the above, the Committee was of the view that prima facie there was no justification to have allotted a residential site of 2000 sq. meters for the workers/employees in an industrial unit proposed to be established over a 450 sq. meter size industrial plot. However, the Corporation appears to have allotted the said residential group housing site keeping in view engagement of 115 number of employees/workers in the said industrial unit. As a matter of fact, the ex-allottee had sufficient opportunity to produce the supporting documents regarding the number of employees on the rolls of the unit, i.e. payment of their salary & contribution of EPF & ESI etc., which he never submitted. The Committee observed that the residential site was allotted for the employees/workers engaged in the industrial unit and not for use as a general group housing project. Given the current report of the industrial project not C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013 -4- having been set up as envisaged and hardly any employees being on the rolls of the said unit, the Committee unanimously decided to reject the appeal and uphold the decision of the Corporation. The Committee further directed to refund the principal amount deposited by the appellant after deductions as per the terms & conditions of LOI."
During the course of hearing when it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's unit has started functioning and many workers are working in the said unit, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file the affidavit of the petitioner in this regard. Though an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner giving reasons for not commencing the production within the stipulated period, but during the course of arguments it has been admitted that as on today the unit of the petitioner is lying closed and no worker is working in the same. In view of this factual position, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order as the same is based on finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Committee, as quoted above, with regard to the functioning of the industrial unit as well as with regard to the workers working in the industrial unit of the petitioner. The purpose of allotting the Group Housing site of 2000 sq. mtr. to the petitioner was to provide residential accommodation to 115 workers, who were supposed to work in the industrial unit of the petitioner. The purpose was not to allot a plot to the industrialist whose unit is lying closed and no worker is working there. As a fact, it has been found by the Appellate Committee and admitted before this Court today that no worker is working with the petitioner's unit. In these facts, the respondents authorities were fully justified in withdrawing the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner for allotment of the Group Housing site. The petitioner C.W.P. No. 9580 of 2013 -5- cannot be permitted to get allotted the residential group housing site and use the same for any other purpose or alienate the same for earning profit. The residential site was meant only for small houses of the workers, who were supposed to work in the industrial unit of the petitioner and not for use as a general group housing project. When the industrial unit is not working and there is no worker, then there is no purpose for allotting the group housing site to the petitioner and the same has rightly been withdrawn by the respondent Corporation.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
May 21, 2013 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
vkg JUDGE