- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 2. 9. 2006 (Annexure-1) by which the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the allotment of Plot No. 6, Sector Pi, Greater N. O. I. D. A. made in favour of the petitioner Society.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 2, Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (hereinafter called the 'greater N. O. I. D. A.) invited applications for allotment of two group housing residential plots-one plot was reserved for allotment in favour of Cooperative Housing Society consisting of members who are employees of Government department and the other plot was kept open for general category. THE petitioner-Society applied for allotment of the first plot on 18. 2. 2003 annexing alongwith its application form, a bank draft of Rs. 20,74,000 as registration fee. THE respondent No. 2 screened the applications and made allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society on 28. 3. 2003 and subsequently, an allotment letter was issued in its favour on 5. 8. 2003. Petitioner made the first deposit of Rs. 41,48,623 on 4. 7. 2003 towards the cost of the plot and the balance. amount was to be deposited in eight equal half yearly instalments of Rs. 23,38,078. THE State Government issued certain directions to maintain status quo in respect of large number of plots including the plot in dispute and in pursuance thereto, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner about the said Government order vide its letter dated 7. 10. 2003. THE petitioner Society, however, made a demand for execution of the lease deed and actual physical possession of the plot being given and for the purpose also deposited the instalments of Rs. 23,38,078 in July, 2004. As neither the respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of plot to the petitioner nor the lease deed was executed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 26630 of 2006 for the aforesaid reliefs. THE said writ petition was disposed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 15. 5. 2006 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner-Society by a speaking and reasoned order. In the meanwhile, petitioner-Society received a notice dated 2. 5. 2006 from respondent No. 2 calling upon it to show-cause as to why the allotment made in it's favour be not cancelled, as the Society was not eligible for making the application for allotment in respect of plot in question. Petitioner-Society submitted this reply to the said show-cause on 29. 5. 2006. THE representation/reply of the petitioner has not found favour with Greater N. O. I. D. A. Authority and vide order dated 2. 9. 2006, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Society has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner Society did not possess the eligibility for making application for allotment. THE respondent No. 2 also refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner-Society alongwith interest. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Ralli and Shri Sunil Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri C. K. Rai, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Pradeep Kumar for respondent No. 2. It has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner-Society that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on behalf of the petitioner-Society while making the application. The Society consists of members, who are the employees of a nationalised bank and therefore, the employees of the petitioner-Society should be treated as Government servants and it possesses the eligibility for allotment. Even if there was any irregularity in allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society or the petitioner-Society was not eligible for allotment, as the respondent No. 2 had made allotment and accepted the amount of Rs. 85,00,000 including the registation fee, therefore, by application of principles of acquiescence, promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the order Impugned should not have been passed and the same is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition contending that as the petitioner-Society did not possess the eligibility as per the advertisement itself, such doctrines do not have any application, whatsoever. The respondent No. 2 had committed a mistake inadvertently, it had a right to rectify the same. Had it been open to apply for non-Governmental department employees, many other societies could have applied. Thus, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Society would be in hostile discrimination to such other similarly situate societies. Moreso, the petitioner-Society submitted a certificate to the effect that the Bank of which the members of the Society were the employees, was a Government bank, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to say that there was no misrepresentation on it's part. The petition is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;