Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmala Goel vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 17 May, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Civil Writ Petition No.9313 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.9313 of 2012
Date of decision:- 17.05.2012
Nirmala Goel
....Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, a widow applied for two plots, flouted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in Hansi, District Hisar, on 13.10.2010. As per the condition in the brochure, only one application could be submitted by an individual. It was contemplated that if more than one application is made, all the applications will be rejected. The relevant clause reads as under:-
"Individual shall be eligible to make only one application in this scheme, in case more than one application is made by an individual, all the applications will be rejected and a deduction of Rs.1000/- per application shall be made from earnest money as processing charges."
The petitioner applied as a 'General Category' candidate and as a 'widow'. She was successful in the draw of lots in both the categories. Subsequently, she sought to surrender the plot allotted to her in the draw of lots meant for the 'General Category', but while considering the said application, both the applications of the petitioner have been rejected in terms Civil Writ Petition No.9313 of 2012 2 of the conditions of the brochure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the petitioner was declared eligible and her name included in the draw of lots, her applications cannot be rejected for the reason that she has applied for more than one plot.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. The condition in the brochure is clear and specific that in case more than one application is made by an individual, all the applications will be rejected. The petitioner in spite of the said condition, had applied for two plots in the same scheme. Therefore, the order of rejection of both the plots is in terms of the specific condition mentioned in the brochure.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL)
May 17, 2012 JUDGE
ajp