Punjab-Haryana High Court
Emaar Mgf Land Limited And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 January, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.23022 of 2010
Date of decision: 21.01.2010
Emaar MGF Land Limited and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hariom Attri, Advocate and Mr. Shakabh Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
RANJIT SINGH J.
Seven builders have filed this petition to make a grievance about the action of the respondents to re-consider the application of the third respondent for grant of licence for Group Housing in Sector 66, Gurgaon at the old priority number. Submission is that this application for grant of Group Housing Licence had earlier been rejected on 12.03.2009 and fresh application dated 15.07.2009 was also returned incomplete yet the official respondents are processing to convert the application of the private respondent for grant of low-cost/mass housing project. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their application for the grant of licence pursuant to their application dated 19.05.2010. Upon completion of Civil Writ Petition No.23022 of 2010 -2- pleadings, the counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and this issues raised have been considered.
It is noticed that the application submitted by respondent No. 3 is under consideration for review. Infact, it is revealed that the Director has already sent the case to the Government with his recommendation. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 is being favoured by reviewing the earlier application and giving it a priority on that basis, whereas the application of the petitioners then would go down in priority. This issue is pressed in the light of the reply filed by the State that the application of the petitioners has been returned. The petitioners concededly have also sought review of the order returning their application. Prayer accordingly is that their application for review may also be considered simultaneously. After initial objections and counter objections, the counsel for the parties have agreed for disposing of the petition with direction to the official respondents to consider and decide the application for review and then to pass an order on the request for grant of licence. It is agreed between the counsel for the parties that the review of the order returning the application, which has been sought by the petitioners, may also be considered and the State be given liberty to pass any appropriate order for grant of LOI.
It can be observed that powers of issuing licence is yet to be finalised. No final order has been passed. Without going into the aspect of maintainability of the writ petition at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to the official respondents to consider the applications filed by the petitioners as well as by respondent No. 3 for review. In fact it is a duty cast on the Civil Writ Petition No.23022 of 2010 -3- official respondents to consider this request in accordance with the law and pass an appropriate order. To remove any ambiguity that may arise, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit and it will be entirely in the discretion of the official respondents to pass any order on the review application of both the parties. The State may, thereafter, take any decision in accordance with law on the ground of request of LOI of both the parties, if found eligible. If parties feel aggrieved against any order that is passed, it would be at liberty to approach any appropriate Forum including this Court. If the official respondents decide to grant LOI in favour of any party then further process to grant licence may continue but the licence, if issued shall remain in abeyance for a period of 4 days to enable the aggrieved party to have their remedy in accordance with law.
January 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE