B. S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ. - (1.) -The petitioner, Sri Deepak Sharma who had responded to the advertisement issued by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'NOIDA') for allotment of a residential plot in terms of the 'Residential Plots Scheme-2004 (1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') has filed Writ Petition No.48287 of 2005 (hereinafter called the first petition) for a direction upon the respondents to execute the lease-deed in his favour on the basis of the allotment letter and to accept the balance amount as per the Schedule mentioned in the Scheme. Subsequently by means of the amendment application the petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 4.7.2005 published in the Times of India and Hindustan Times on 6.7.2005 cancelling the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005.
(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the announcement of the aforesaid Scheme by NOIDA he had submitted an application on 14.12.2004 for allotment of a plot in category "01" and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000. The draw of lots was held on 2.7.2005 and the petitioner came to know through the Internet that he had been allotted plot No. 234, Block C, Sector 122, NOIDA but when the petitioner made enquiries in the NOIDA office, he learnt that the draw of lots had been cancelled. Pursuant to our order dated 11.7.2005, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of NOIDA on 19.7.2005 and the records were produced. An Impleadment/Intervention application was also filed on behalf of one Ashok Kumar duly supported by an affidavit containing averments in support of the cancellation of the draw of lots. On 19.7.2005 another petition filed by Manav Sewa Samiti and 26 others (hereinafter called the second petition) also came up before us in which the main reliefs sought were for prohibiting NOIDA from approving draw of lots held on 2.7.2005, for causing an investigation to be done by a suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots. On that day we directed that Tata Consultancy Services (hereinafter referred to as 'TCS') and Uttar Pradesh Development System Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'UPDESCO') should be impleaded as respondents. The matter was next taken up by us on 4.8.2005 when, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we passed an order, the relevant portion of which is quoted below : "From the deliberations which have taken place today, we are of the opinion that for a proper examination of the dispute raised in this petition, NOIDA may, by means of an affidavit of a responsible Officer, make available the following information : (1) What was the total number of applications received by NOIDA in respect of the Scheme Code, 2004 (1) for allotment of residential plots in different categories, (2) The terms and conditions of allotment as made known to the applicants at large, (3) The Byelaws or codified norms either in the shape of Circulars/letters or resolutions, if any, and such other documents governing the procedure of scrutiny of forms and disposal thereof and the various methods of short listing or djfining the Zone of consideration of applicants including disqualifications, (4) The power of the Authority to relax any of the terms and conditions, (5) Whether such applications were scrutinized by NOIDA before the draw of lots and if the applications had been scrutinized, then how many of them were rejected as being not in conformity with the terms and conditions stipulated by NOIDA. It should also indicate the specific reason for rejecting such applications, (6) Whether any attempt was made by NOIDA to find out whether the applicants were genuine persons and if no such attempt was made, then the affidavit must indicate the reason why it was not considered necessary to do so, (7) Whether any spouse had submitted the application even though the other spouse was already having a plot in NOIDA and whether such applications were entertained, (8) Whether both the spouses had applied simultaneously under the aforesaid Scheme for allotment of plots and whether their applications had been processed and whether the spouses or any of them were found to be successful in the list of allottees, (9) What was the last date initially notified by NOIDA for submitting the application forms and how many application forms had been received by that date, (10) Whether this last date for submission of the application forms had been extended by NOIDA and if so the name of the Officer who had extended the date and for what reason. In such a situation NOIDA should also specifically indicate as to how many application forms were subsequently received during this extended period and the number of successful allottees from amongst those who had submitted the application forms during the extended period, (11) The procedure of draw of lots and details of such procedure having been adopted in the past."
(3.) THEREAFTER NOIDA filed a counter-affidavit in the Second Petition giving a reply to not only the queries contained in the order dated 4.8.2005 but also a detailed reply to the averments made in the said writ petition. We heard the matter on 24.8.2005 and 25.8.2005 when it transpired that the draw of lots had been held without even scrutinising the application forms as the regular practice in NOIDA was to scrutinise them subsequently at the time of execution of the lease deed. However, Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel appearing for NOIDA assured the Court that all the forms which did not fulfil the requirements, as indicated in the Scheme would be rejected and the list of such applicants shall be prepared. The list of all the applicants who are found to be eligible shall also be prepared separately and both the lists shall be produced before the Court.;